Click here to view the embedded video.

The Daily Caller also emphasized these aspects of the ad:

[snip] Obama won the primary in a landslide. He easily won the 2004 election against a weak GOP opponent, after his main GOP rival quit the race when a Democratic-appointed judge unsealed damaging divorce testimony.

The 2004 video also showcases several recurring features of Obama’s speeches — his use of the passive tense to glide past controversial issues, his passive-aggressive portrayal of himself as the reasonable moderate among extremists, and his promises of benefits without costs.
[...]

He cites his attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ without mentioning the controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

[...]

He uses the passive tense to mention his 1996 race for a state Senate seat. That passive-voice phrase — “seven years ago, this opportunity came up to serve in the General Assembly in Illinois” — avoids any mention of the sharp-elbowed tactics that he used to snatch the seat from a veteran, female African-American Democratic incumbent.

[...]

“If there is an Arab American somewhere getting rounded up by [Attorney General] John Ashcroft, without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties even if I am not an immigrant,” he declares, three years after the 9/11 attacks. Ashcroft was not “rounding up” Arab immigrants in 2004, but was actually resisting efforts by police agencies to expand surveillance. (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, what a walk down Memory Lane this provoked, including some of the underhanded tactics Obama’s camp employed in addition to what was mentioned above. And as the article notes, Obama enthusiastically mentioned his active participation in his church. Yep, good ol’ TUCC with that paragon of Christian virtue, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As a reminder, here’s a bit more on TUCC and Wright:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Note that his “US-KKK-of-A” speech was in 2003, the year before this ad came out. Oh, and yes, he has retired now, to his million dollar mansion in a “white suburb.” Uh, yeah. And of course, it just reminds us of how many of Obama’s associates like Rezko, Father Fleger, Auchi, Khalidi, Meeks, et al., were allowed to slip on by our “esteemed” media…

I urge you to read the rest of the article to make sure you catch all of he nuances of Obama’s 2004 ad compared to his rhetoric today. It is mighty interesting.

And since it is Sunday, I have to leave you with something fun to bring a smile to your faces. This clip is from Jimmy Kimmel, getting parents to play a bit of a trick on their children post Halloween:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Hilarious!

This is an Open Thread. Have a great day, everyone.

Anyway, my aunt sent me the following “Attack Watch” entries, and I just have to share them with you for my last post for a while. They had me cracking up:

“My neighbor removed his Obama bumper sticker. I think he’s a racist.”

“Bless me #AttackWatch for I have sinned. I have muttered naughty words about our Dear Leader 9 times & have doubted his divinity a few times.”

“Ate refried beans & chips for breakfast which is sort of racist foodist – Carbon emissions to follow.”

“#AttackWatch have you cried “uncle” yet? Because we can keep this up all f***in’ day.”

“I saw a kid eating fries with his happy meal yesterday.”

“I did see the price of arugula at the supermarket today.”

“I just parked my private jet in a handicap space, left it running & bought lemonade from little girls in yard w/o a permit!”

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean a big majority of us isn’t out to get you…”

“Hey #attackwatch I heard the TSA was coming out with a similar website, it’s called AttackCrotch.”

“Rush Limbaugh said he’s reporting himself… so others don’t have to!”

“What a Twit we have as President.”

Ahahahaha. Funny, right? The TSA one is surely accurately named. I hope none of y’all have had to endure one of their pat downs, but I can tell you, just having gone through it again on Sunday, the Attack Watch entry is spot on. Wow. Don’t you feel safer? Ahem.

Here’s a “Top Ten” list of funny Attack Watch tweets:

10) @ScottSwett1 #AttackWatch: I, for one, am honored to be recruited as an informer by our new insect overlords.

9) @iowahawkblog: I’m grateful to live in a country where the totalitarians are so hilariously inept. #AttackWatch

@justkarl: .@Doc_0 #AttackWatch already has a bat-signal, but it’s solar, so it doesn’t work at night.

7) @secupp Watch out, monthly jobless report. @AttackWatch is onto you. #attackwatch

6) @freeulysses Hey #attackwatch my boss just said the purpose of a business is to make a profit for it’s shareholders. Can I like, citizens arrest?

5) @RachelWard301 @attackwatch I sneezed & some guy I don’t know said “God bless you”. I want him arrested for forcing his religion on me. #attackwatch

4) @madisonmom4 #attackwatch I have to turn my husband in, he told my son there’s only 50 states. What a commie

3) @CalebHowe Extra points if you turn in your parents. MT @AttackWatch See a new attack on the President or his record? Use #attackwatch to report it.

2) @johnhawkinsrwn Bush wanted people to say something if they suspected terrorism. Obama wants you to alert #AttackWatch if you think someone doesn’t like him

1) @mkhammer I prince of Nigeria. Please to unleash many riches I send you. Simple help by report @michellemalkin to #AttackWatch. Also, ur credit card.

Ohmygosh, those are hilarious! Feel free to add your own or anything else about which you want to talk.

Friends, this is it for me for a while. My surgery is Thursday (9/22), and I will be away from my computer for a bit. My partner will let y’all know how the surgery went, and what they found while they were in there. Thank you so much for all of the support, the love, and the prayers. It means a lot to me. I’ll miss our conversations, but I look forward to getting back here soon. Until then, take care, hang in there, and keep laughing – it helps to deal with the craziness in the world. Here’s a little tune until next time:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Amen to that. Blessings, friends.

But that is not the point of this post, believe it or not. No, rather it is this: at the very same site, there is this article, “PROFESSOR: Sarah Palin Probably Staged A Gigantic Hoax About Being Trig’s Mother.”

I am not kidding, and it is not a tongue-in-cheek article, either. Oh, Andrew Sullivan must be SO happy that some professor at Northern Kentucky University is taking his assertion to heart. (And I am sure the parents who send their kids to school there are so happy to learn that one of the professors seems to be spending time “proving” that Sarah is not Trig’s real mother.) From what I can tell, the conclusion reached by Scharlotte was mere conjecture, but hey, that’s better than nothing, right? Ahem.

It does make me wonder one thing: just what is it this professor teaches exactly? I mean, with all this time on his hands to delve into such ground-breaking research, and all, it’s gotta be something important, no doubt. (That is snark, by the way.) Actually, he teaches journalism. Yes, journalism. Now you have a glimpse into why our media is in such bad shape, presuming this is representative of the professors in this field (he is also very upset that some “Palin Flack” is trying to squelch discussion on this critical issue facing us today. Again, not kidding.) Uh, yeah. THIS is what he is so concerned about the media not covering now, during this tumultuous time. Wow.

Oh, you’re probably wondering who IS Trig’s real mother according to Scharlotte (and Sullivan). Well, it’s Bristol, of course. C’mon, that’s as clear as the nose on your face, people!

What is really hilarious to me, though, are the comments at this article. The exact same people who demean, belittle, and attack those who would like to see Obama’s birth certificate act like this is a matter of National Security. You know, because Palin ran as the Vice Presidential candidate, so who her baby mama is matters a LOT. Hey, say what you will about Birthers, at least the desire to see an actual birth certificate is to fulfill a Constitutional requirement. And it is a requirement other presidential candidates have fulfilled, I might add.

But this has zero to do with the Constitution. This has to do with Palin Hatred veiled as outrage at a lackluster media, one that hasn’t done its job in reporting this “earth shattering” story:

[snip] He (Professor Scharlotte) concludes two things:

* First, that the “conspiracy theory” is likely true–Sarah Palin staged a huge hoax, and, second,

* The American media is pathetic for not pursuing the story more aggressively
[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, yes – where has the media been? You know, the one that aggressively pursued Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko, or Bill Ayers, or Jeremiah Wright, or James Meeks, or his college/grad school records, or why there were ZERO paper recrods from the entire time Obama was in the IL Senate, or how he got everyone thrown off the ballot the first time he ran, or how he got the sealed divorce records of the two front-runner US Senate candidates unsealed right before the election, or any NUMBER of red flags about Barack Obama.

Oh, wait – they didn’t. But this man thinks what they SHOULD have been doing was going after Palin even more. Because the boatload of reporters who descended on Wasilla to turn over every rock they could, or the 11 reporters the AP assigned to check her book, is not the least bit aggressive in its efforts. Kinda makes you wonder how many they have assigned to “fact check” Obama’s books, huh? Yeah. I’m not holding my breath for that to happen, either.

It is just comical the complete and utter hypocrisy contained within this one site on such a related issue. And the utter lack of recognition of the hypocrisy, too, is a bit comical.

Yes, by all means, let us spend lots of time and media resources on whether or not Trig is Sarah Palin’s son, because that is of the utmost importance. Never mind Obama’s real back-story – he’s only the President after all. Hey, we have to have our priorities with our media, right? Right. Budget crisis? What “budget crisis”? I need to know who is really the mother of that kid, don’t you?

If you’ll excuse me, I have to go read “People” magazine now to get the REAL news…

To make matters worse, as Jake Tapper reports, Obama informed the Congress via a letter that we had gone to war. Surprise! Separation of powers? What separation of powers? Read it here:

Amidst claims by members of Congress that they were insufficiently consulted, and ensuing White House pushback, President Obama Monday officially notified congressional leaders that at “approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.”

The notification was part of the president’s “efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” but given complaints from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the fact that the war started two days ago, it had the effect of a rather discomforting “While You Were Out…” note. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Then there is the little problem of Obama turning over control of our military to a political coalition.

You can’t make this stuff up. Well, maybe if you worked at The Onion or Mad Magazine.

Holy moley.

So check this out. Remember back in the day when Obama was depicted as the Hope And Change Agent of the Universe? I know, I know, some are still caught up in that Kool Aide induced haze, but not everyone went so far as to change the 100+ year old name of a school. You may recall that a school in New Jersey did just that. Yes, Bangs Avenue Elementary decided to change its name to Barack Obama Elementary a year or so ago.

Guess what? That school is closing. Yep, turns out it will save the district a bunch of money to close it, and send the children to two other schools instead. At the end of this school year, the Barack Obama Elementary School will be no more. The building will keep Obama’s name, though, ans be used for other things (basketball? Golf? Parties?).

I have two quotes from this article I have to share with you. The first is from the Superintendent, Denise Lowe:

[snip] “Change is never easy, but the district is at a pivotal point where difficult decisions must be made,” Lowe said in a statement Thursday afternoon. “The consequences of idleness are far greater than the improvisation that is now necessary.” [snip]

And this one:

[snip] “We needed a change … we need to fix our school district,” said Nina Summerlin, the Parent-Teacher Organization president at both the Obama and Middle schools.[snip]

Oh, my. Now THAT is some “change we can believe in,” right? The irony, the irony.

Oh, want to hear another irony? Wanna guess how much money was being spent PER child in this district (Asbury Park)? About $36,000 per child. And as Michelle Malkin points out, what they get for this hefty price tag are the lowest test results that Education.com offers. Holy moley.

And now for another story you may have seen, but which bears repeating. That would be Senator Claire McCaskill, her plane, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars she owed in back taxes on said plane.

Now, here is what makes this so, oh, what’s the word, laughable. Or hypocritical, take your pick:

[snip] McCaskill recently co-sponsored a bill in the Senate that would send pink slips to federal employees who are found to have unpaid taxes, a measure Republicans also highlighted Monday, calling the Democrat a hypocrite. But a McCaskill aide said that was not a fair attack. “Those are people who knowingly have not paid their taxes and have refused to own up to it and to make that right,” an aide told Fox. “She didn’t knowingly do this. This is a situation where a mistake was made. As soon as she found out…she made it right,” the aide told Fox.

Because planes are not licensed the way automobiles are with the state of residence, rather they are licensed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the state has no record of ownership and, therefore, sends no property tax bill.

As for that bill, the McCaskill aide said, “The senator has already written and sent the check to repay this money. There was no effort to evade taxes here.” [snip]

Um, over $287,000, 3 years worth, is not trying to “evade taxes”? Yeah, okay, sure. I suppose that could happen to just anyone, right? And the IRS would SURELY understand such a thing if it happened to a regular old citizen, no doubt about it! They are so understanding about things of that nature. Cough, cough. Well, unless someone is a senator or representative (think Charlie Rangel) that is.

As an aside, who among us can sit down and write out a check for that amount of money at the drop of a hat? Yeah, me, neither. I also have to ask, what the hell kind of plane is this that the annual taxes are so hefty? Good grief.

There were other issues with the plane, too, like her use of it, for which she had to pay back $89,000 to the government. Oops. I guess she forgot what the rules are around things like using taxpayer money to fund political trips, 89 of them, to be specific. Yeah, right, that’s the ticket, she just forgot! Sheesh, what do you want from her? Ahem.

As for McCaskill and the plane, well, this is her take:

[snip] An audibly exasperated McCaskill told reporters, “I have convinced my husband to sell the damned plane. He has hired a broker, and I never intend to step foot on that plane ever again.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, it is all that “damn” plane’s fault! Harrumph!

Oh, and before anyone tries to compare this to Sarah Palin selling a jet on Ebay, bear in mind, Palin did not buy that plane, her predecessor did. Nor did Palin want the state to have to pay for it, so she had it sold for $2.1 million.

Once again, we see demonstrated, from the top down from Obama to McCaskill, that the rules, the laws, do not apply to people whom we have elected. Don’t know quite how that has become the case, since they swear to uphold the Constitution, but it sure does seem to be the way of Washington. We see it from Obama essentially waging war without Congressional approval to failing to pay taxes while expecting others to do so lest they face harsh consequences. Those consequences all seem to be for others, though – “for thee, not me.” That might as well be the mew motto on the Presidential Seal, don’t you think? As long as they can get away with it, they seem hellbent on breaking the rules. I think it is far past time they get their comeuppance. Perhaps in 2012?

The Los Angeles Times in a short piece by Andrew Malcolm, says it all in the headline,”Obama Recruits An Army Of Community Organizers To Carry His ‘Movement Forward For Years To Come.”

Holy crappy doo.

You may recall that during the 2008 Election campaign, Obama had his “Obama For America” thugs, er, troops. Once he successfully stole the nomination from Clinton, it became rebranded as “Organizing for America.” You know, the one that “thoughtfully” provided a (used) slogan for a memorial service in Tucson after Jared Loughner opened fire, “Together We Thrive.” (Photo from LA Times article.)

Hard to believe it can get worse than that headline, but it does (depending upon your perspective, that is):

[snip] Strengthening “our democracy” presumably has something to do with reelecting the revered leader in 2012.

However, the Organizing for America recruiting message says nothing about politics or election campaigns and strangely talks in military terms of “a grassroots program that aims to put boots on the ground and help foster a new generation of leaders — not just to help win elections but to strengthen our democracy in communities across the country.”

The same Obama campaign group was reported involved in fomenting and facilitating the ongoing Wisconsin protests against Gov. Scott Walker’s budget plans.

The message about what it calls the “Summer Organizing Fellowship” adds: “Effective organizing doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It takes commitment, time, and hard work to build a movement around a cause.” It does not specify what the “cause” is, other than promoting Obama and his agenda.[snip]

Again I say, holy crappydoo.

Is this scaring the shit out of anyone else but me?

Well, if that part above didn’t, maybe this will:

[snip] The cadres “will be assigned to a specific community,” the message informs, “where they’ll work to organize supporters street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood.”

Hey, friends – I will be out of town starting 2/26 – 3/6, and unable to check in here. As always, I recommend visits to No Quarter, Uppity Woman’s blog, Stray Yellar Dawg’s site, and Logistics Monster’s site, to name a few. There are links to each one in the Blogroll. I hope you all have an excellent week. I know I am planning on doing the same!

Their job will involve recruiting additional Obama workers, running Obama-related events, knocking on doors to talk of Obama “and lay new groundwork to carry this movement forward for years to come.”

“In the end,” the Obama campaign appeal says of the community organizer corps, “their work will take our grassroots power to an impressive new level.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

How about now? Recruiting members, knocking on doors, all to spread the Good Word Of Obama, and implement his will for “years to come”?

And just what does it mean to “take our grassroots power to an impressive new level“? I don’t think I want to know.

How about you, what do you think?

Once again, revising history, and having their baseless meme become the theme of the week. That would be the Left, beginning with “Heckuva Job” Sheriff Dupnik, who kicked off the “report” of the shootout in Tucson as being the result of rhetoric.

Oh, yes, you may not know this, but President Obama called Sheriff Dupnik to thank him. I just bet he did, since Sheriff Dupnik got the ball rolling blaming Gov. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other Conservatives, for this heinous crime. There continues to be no evidence whatsoever that rhetoric had anything to do with this – in fact, quite the opposite.

Surprisingly, though, some of the bigger media outfits refuse to correct the original unsubstantiated claims against Palin, et. al. I am not kidding. People like George Stephanopoulos refuses to issue a correction. Sadly, pathetically, he is not alone. How about this one:

[snip] CNN’s Piers Morgan, who takes over longtime television newsman Larry King’s timeslot next week, tweeted, “This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications,” linking the map Palin made of targeted congressional districts for the 2010 midterm elections. [snip}

Or this from Candy Crowley to Dick Durbin:

[snip] CNN’s State of the Union anchor Candy Crowley asked Senator Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat, “I guess that the undertow — and certainly it’s not an undertow on the Internet — but the undertow with politicians now speaking publicly is, well, the Republicans and the Tea Party and Sarah Palin have gone way too far in their rhetoric; it’s been violent rhetoric, and therefore this sort of thing happens. Are you making that direct connection?”

She asked Durbin that in response to Durbin saying, “we live in a world of violent images and violent words, but those of us in public life and the journalists who cover us should be thoughtful in response to this and try to bring down the rhetoric, which I’m afraid has become pervasive in our discussion of political issues. The phrase ‘don’t retreat, reload,’ putting crosshairs on congressional districts as targets, these sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response. And I think that we all have an obligation, both political parties — and let me salute the senior senator from Arizona, John McCain, whose statement yesterday was clear and unequivocal that we are not accepting this kind of conduct as being anywhere near the mainstream.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah. Way to walk back this fallacious meme there, George, Candy, and Piers.

Yet now, “Civility” has become the catch phrase of the week, used by Obama in the so-called “Memorial Service” on Wednesday night. Yes, it is being used as a way not to encourage civil debate, but to stifle any debate at all.

This is quite a coup. Especially as the House is getting ready to begin a new session, with their first order of business being the repeal of Obamacare. Now the discussion by the pundits is how the Republicans are going to handle this, will everyone be separated at the State of the Union, or will they break with tradition and sit all together, and on, and on, and on.

I am not opposed to civility in the least. I am a Southerner, after all, and many of us do still have manners down here. We know it is better to bite our tongues sometimes instead of giving a tongue lashing. But that is done out of respect, not out of a desire to censor. It seems to me that what is going on post-Tucson is more of the latter, than the former, especially given the way the entire discussion (if one can call baseless, horrendous allegations a “discussion”). For some reason, it only seems to apply to one side. Guess which one? Again, that is not being civil, that is silencing – there is a world of difference.

Speaking of Obama’s campaign speech in Tucson, I have to say this. I am beyond disgusted that the whole event has been framed as being about HIM, about what he will say, will this bump up his approval numbers, etc., etc. This service was SUPPOSED to be in honor of those whose lives were senselessly taken from them. Not about President Obama and if he could take yet another shot at “defining” his presidency. Because you know Fort Hood didn’t count.

And not that it should – I don’t think ANY funeral/memorial service should be used for this kind of political gain. It is disturbing how so many are comparing this speech to Clinton’s Oklahoma City bombing speech, a clear ideological attack on our government. Or Bush’s speech after 9/11, a clear, orchestrated, attack on our country. This heinous crime was neither of those things. Rather, it was the actions of one deranged man, who, by all accounts, had no ideological gripe.

Obama is getting praise heaped upon him for taking advantage of this horrible shooting by giving a campaign speech. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, the primary target of Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, DailyKos, and too many other personalities and blogs to list here., is getting nothing but scathing attacks for her attempt to defend herself from these scurrilous attacks. She is not supposed to speak out, she is not supposed to respond, she is supposed to shut up and go away. That was the point of these baseless assertions in the first place, to so discredit her, to claim, as Michael Daly did, that she had “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ blood on her hands…”

Ah, yes – so civil this discourse from the Left.

This is so disturbing to see how this tragedy has been shaped. My ridiculous “representative,” Jim Clyburn, had the audacity to play the race card in putting down Sarah Palin’s response. Oh, yes he did, and he was sexist to boot:

[snip] “You know, Sarah Palin just can’t seem to get it, on any front. I think she’s an attractive person, she is articulate,” Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. “But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what’s going on here.”

“I have some experiences that maybe she does not have,” he said. “When I see and hear things today that are reminiscent of that period of time, I am very, very concerned about it, because I know what it led to back then, and I know what it can lead to again.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Wow. Let me just say, Clyburn is by far NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer, so for him, of all people, to make that assertion about Palin is just laughable. Clyburn continues to stoke the flames that the Tucson shooting had anything to do with Palin at all. That is not just wrong-headed, it is plain wrong to incite people against someone based on lies, rumor, and innuendo. Clyburn is the worst kind of “offender,” too, attacking her for her rhetoric while not minding his own. What a piece of work he is.

But Clyburn got what he wanted, with Obama’s willing assistance – to transform this tragedy to essentially be a put down of Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general. The media is their willing accomplice, from Fox to MSNBC (not surprisingly, the viewers of MSNBC are far more likely to believe Palin, et. al, ARE responsible for what happened to Rep. Giffords and the other victims. And they claim Fox is biased? Spare me.).

To think this all started by an unprofessional sheriff placing blame where it didn’t belong, and a bunch of opportunists jumping on the bandwagon. Wow. And no amount of facts to the contrary will alter THEIR rhetoric. That is unethical, immoral, cruel, offensive, and hypocritical. But they got their way, so what do they care?

At least the majority of Americans see through this political ploy, yet it continues to be played up to the hilt by the media, and the politicians. Unfortunately, they are the ones with the loudest voices, and they won’t leave this alone until we all accept their lie as the truth…

Bernie Goldberg discussed Obama’s Fall from the MSM’s “slobbering love affair” recently, based on research he conducted for his book of the same title Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, and evidenced by recent statements from prominent members of the media:

Gee – is it possible that some folks are really starting to get what we were trying to tell them (and for which we were roundly dismissed with charges of racism, sour grapes, and much worse)? Even some folks in Hollywood are getting it now:

Here’s the thing, Gene – maybe if you had actually done some homework, maybe looked at the local Chicago papers, or thought to yourself, “huh – I wonder why we can’t see Obama’s transcripts, or medical records, or any paperwork at all from his time in IL?” Or even, “why did Obama have to get everyone thrown off the ballot to win his IL seat?” Or how about, “Why did Obama’s team expose the sealed divorce records of both front-runners for the US Senate seat?” Or maybe, just maybe, THIS question: “Why is this guy running after being in the U.S. Senate for 143 days?” Maybe then you wouldn’t have wasted your vote, and be regretting it now.

I have to say, I LOVE Jane Lynch, so I was thrilled to see that she got it. I have tried and tried and TRIED to tell my Obot-loving family that Obama does NOT support same-sex marriage, just the same as the woman they love to hate, Sarah Palin.

While I am speaking of Obama, SC Gov.-Elect Haley was on Greta discussing Obamacare the other night (and thanks to fellow writer, Eastan, for alerting me to her appearance):

Yep – she’s going to be representing our state, and I have to say, I am glad of it.

Anywho – so some in the media continue to wake up (others, not so much – three words, Olbermann and Maddow), but there are signs of life now among not just the media, but the Hollywood cheerleaders, too.

Okay, so NOW do I get to do my “Told You So” dance? Hmm – that wouldn’t be in keeping with the spirit of the season, so how about this: Welcome. We have been waiting for you.

Breaking News: As of this writing, the Senate has voted to allow DADT to advance. Finally. I knew this was going to happen – it would be left until right before the new Congress came in. But it appears DADT will finally be repealed, thank heavens (and no real thanks to Obama – if anyone should be thanked for this, it is Rep. Patrick Murphy, who has pushed for repeal tirelessly). A final vote should be forthcoming this weekend, but it looks good for repeal!

The Courage Campaign has highlighted an important aspect of DADT repeal about which you may not have heard. This from an email I received today:

Here’s the skinny: the Senate vote was the last legislative obstacle. Now the bill will head to President Obama’s desk for his signature. But even after the President signs this law, no one can serve openly. Certification is first required from the President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of Defense. It’s part of a backroom deal cut months ago, and it’s ridiculous. We’ve seen how the Administration has dragged their feet over the past two years on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. We can’t let that happen again.

It is not a done deal yet. We must keep the Administration’s feet to the fire on this issue so that all Americans who wish to serve may serve.

Ross Douthat of the New York Times penned A Man for All Factions. It is a similar, if more civil, companion piece to the incendiary offering from Michael Goodwin of the NY Post, The Loneliest Man in DC, intimating that President Obama is increasingly isolated from his Democratic base. As Douthat notes:

For decades, the Democratic Party was torn by civil war.

On one side was the liberal left — populist in economics and dovish on foreign policy, in favor of lavish spending programs and suspicious of big business, and hostile to any idea that seemed to give an inch to the conservatives. On the other were the moderates and centrists — pro-market and pro-Wall Street, inclined to tiptoe rightward on issues like crime and welfare, and hawkish about deficits and dictators alike.

But peace was also possible because Barack Obama emerged to bridge the Democratic divide. The left initially wanted John Edwards as the 2008 nominee; the centrists wanted Hillary Clinton. But Obama united the party by persuading both factions that he was really on their side.

We now know better. But then, this is the type of delusional branding that millions swallowed…

The left looked at him and saw a community organizer and Hyde Park intellectual who had been against the Iraq war before being antiwar was fashionable. Of course he was one of them!

The moderates listened to him and heard a postpartisan healer who promised to work with Republicans, cut middle-class taxes and send more troops to Afghanistan. Obviously he was a centrist at heart!

Douthat points out he has accomplished the “more difficult” feat of alienating both sides. Mr. Douthat accuses both factions of self-serving arguments blaming their opposing Democrats for the failures of this administration. His “mystique having backfired,” Obama looks like a dispassionate “bystander.” Much like someone who spent a lot of time voting “present” in the state senate in Illinois. And three years ago, when we mentioned that might be a problem for a leader, we were roundly insulted and ostracized for our trouble.

Blog writer Dakinikat very effectively discussed the left’s new revisionist history on The Confluence in her piece “Walking Back Obama” New meme: They never really bought into Obama’s nonsense in the first place. Not so fast! I want all the pretentious boobs who foisted this man on us to wear their buttons loud and proud. We want to know who to thank.

There is nothing more irritating to those who consider themselves to be of superior intellect than to admit they have been bamboozled, that they are poor judges of character and were sold a bill of goods not too different from the latest deodorant commercial or diet pill fad.

Via Bob Woodward’s book reporting on Obama’s Afghanistan war negotiations, his reneging on FISA, public financing, on keeping public policymaking public and more – a picture emerges of a man who attempts to be all things to all people and as a result, pleases no one.

At some point, one has to decide what to put into the stew. Too many spices yield the same result as none at all – something that tastes miserable and is inedible.

Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and Chris Matthews are shouting for President Obama to “put down the idiot boards” and talk to the American people. Matthews reported that Obama is taking a teleprompter to a mid level business meeting. How much more clear do we have to make it that this guy is reading from a script and has no idea how to lead this country. These gentlemen seem to forget what we knew all along – there is no there there.

In the upcoming midterm elections, Democrats have once again taken to fear mongering and demagoguery, much as they did in 2008 when they threatening disaffected Hillary Democrats with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a 100 year war in Iraq and conservative SCOTUS appointments. If all you have to offer is threats and “The other guys are worse than we are”, that is not an appetizing recipe, particularly since Dems have been in control of Congress for four years and the results haven’t been all that scintillating.

Peggy Noonan of WSJ, another Obama lover/Clinton basher who has seen the writing on the wall and is now trying to get ahead of the curve, reports the president has lost control of his base and in her piece, The Twister of 2010, states the obvious:

You don’t diss people into voting for you, you can’t lecture them into love. The response from the left was fierce, unapologetic—and accusatory.

Apparently Peggy didn’t like Obama’s recent diatribte in Rolling Stone Magazine telling voters they were being “irresponsible” and “not serious in the first place.” Looking at the unemployment situation and the looming disaster that is this ill-crafted new health care policy, believe me, everyone out here is serious as a heart attack.

Shortly, we’ll see how that translates itself at the polls. I no longer vote party, I vote sanity, policy, character and record. Clintonomics worked. Obamanomics doesn’t. But we don’t have the Clinton Dems in charge now. Absent that, I’ll have to look at who has a record of running a business effectively when I vote this November.

Whomever one chooses, doing the homework is vital. A biased Kool-Aid drinking media should not make the choice for us. They don’t seem to choose very well. The best example is their self-serving bashing of the Tea Party movement, I am sure part of their negativity is sincere and stems purely from their insular, incestuous and sequestered behavior. This is not unlike their baseless Hillary-bashing of 2008 — and the contempt these nitwits showed for her sensible supporters. Hey “journolists!” — Write a note to self — talk to somebody outside the office before writing your next goofy editorial.

Clearly, they don’t understand us any better than the the President when he claims we are “irresponsible” or “not serious” just because we are not offering the level of adulation the head cheese is used to.

Those days are gone.

Why? Well, I bet you can guess if you think about it for a minute. Give up? This headline by Brent Baker at Newsbusters will make it clear, “Newsweek Ranks U.S. the 11th ‘Best Country’ – Bush’s Fault, Obama Can Stem The Tide.” Yep, it’s all Bush’s fault, but Obama the Messiah can right this listing ship:

Newsweek, recently sold for one dollar by the Washington Post Company but still in its hands, ranked the United States 11th, just behind Denmark, in this week’s “The Best Countries in the World” cover story which put Finland at #1, followed by Switzerland and Sweden. There’s hope for improvement, however, thanks to George W. Bush’s departure from the White House and Barack Obama’s arrival. Michael Hirsh explained the beyond the top ten rank:

America hasn’t recovered from the serious blows to its stature delivered by nearly a decade of policy debacles. As Obama never tires of reminding the American public…he inherited a Herculean task: the Augean-stable-size mess left behind by George W. Bush.

The August 23 & 30 two-week edition cover story package certainly reflected Obama’s policy agenda. A sidebar (apparently not online) on the nations with the best health care, which put Japan at the top, touted fourth-best Spain where “universal coverage is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and there are no out-of-pocket expenses aside from some prescription drugs.” The U.S. wasn’t even one of the top ten countries listed (the full list online has the U.S. at #26 in health, tied with the Czech Republic and Chile and behind Slovenia.) [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Blech. Seriously, these people need to put down the Hopium pipe, and you know they’re on it. How else to explain selling a magazine for a BUCK? I mean, I know things are tight right now, but c’mon! Ahem.

Perhaps it would interest the authors of this piece to learn that Bush is actually more popular in some major “frontline” districts than their Revered One. It seems those areas are ones of great concern to Democrats since they currently hold the seats there. Oops!

But back to being Number 11 – woohoo, celebrate, woot, woot! I’ll let Stephen Colbert have the last word on this (again), and Newsweek, too:

Fortunately, though, some people (besides us) are seeing Obama for who he is as this article highlights (h/t to LisaB), “Obama, The Thin Skinned President“. I have been saying it for ages – Obama is an incredibly petulant, immature, arrogant, narcissistic person who seems to want the perks of the job, and none of the responsibility. Hell, if Bush had said something like this, it would be ALL OVER the headlines. I would have been writing about that, too. But Obama? You know the drill: “Leave Barry ALLOOOONNNEEEE!”

Spare me.

Except these guys didn’t, thank heavens:

In their book “The Battle for America 2008,” Haynes Johnson and Dan Balz wrote this:

[Chief political aide David] Axelrod also warned that Obama’s confessions of youthful drug use, described in his memoir, Dreams From My Father, would be used against him. “This is more than an unpleasant inconvenience,” he wrote. “It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don’t relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,” he said of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate opponent.

I thought of this memo after reading the comment by Sen. Pat Roberts after he and other Senate Republicans had a contentious 80-minute meeting with the president on Tuesday. “He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans,” Roberts said. “He’s pretty thin-skinned.”

Sen. Roberts is being too generous. Obama is among the most thin-skinned presidents we have had, and we see evidence of it in every possible venue imaginable, from one-on-one interviews to press conferences, from extemporaneous remarks to set speeches.

The president is constantly complaining about what others are saying about him. He is upset at Fox News, and conservative talk radio, and Republicans, and people carrying unflattering posters of him. He gets upset when his avalanche of faulty facts are challenged, like on health care. He gets upset when he is called on his hypocrisy, on everything from breaking his promise not to hire lobbyists in the White House to broadcasting health care meetings on C-SPAN to not curtailing earmarks to failing in his promises of transparency and bipartisanship.
In Obama’s eyes, he is always the aggrieved, always the violated, always the victim of some injustice. He is America’s virtuous and valorous hero, a man of unusually pure motives and uncommon wisdom, under assault by the forces of darkness.
It is all so darn unfair.

Not surprisingly, Obama’s thin skin leads to self pity. As Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard pointed out, in a fundraising event for Sen. Barbara Boxer, Obama said,

Let’s face it: this has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930s. (Emphasis mine)

Really, now? Worse than the period surrounding December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001? Worse than what Gerald Ford faced after the resignation of Richard Nixon and Watergate, which constituted the worse constitutional scandal in our history and tore the country apart? Worse than what Ronald Reagan faced after Jimmy Carter (when interest rates were 22 percent, inflation was more than 13 percent, and Reagan faced something entirely new under the sun, “stagflation”)? Worse than 1968, when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated and there was rioting in our streets? Worse than what LBJ faced during Vietnam — a war which eventually claimed more than 58,000 lives? Worse than what John Kennedy faced in the Bay of Pigs and in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we and the Soviet Union edged up to the brink of nuclear war? Worse than what Franklin Roosevelt faced on the eve of the Normandy invasion? Worse than what Bush faced in Iraq in 2006, when that nation was on the edge of civil war, or when the financial system collapsed in the last months of his presidency? Worse than what Truman faced in defeating imperial Japan, in reconstructing post-war Europe, and in responding to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea?

That isn’t “thin-skinned” – that is DELUSIONAL. He honestly thinks he has had more to deal with in the past 80 years than Roosevelt during a little thing he may have heard of, World War II??? Or how about Vietnam? The WORLD TRADE TOWERS??? Seriously? Wow. Yep, I’d say he’s delusional. Back to the article:

In his autobiography “Present at the Creation,” Dean Acheson wrote about the immensity of the task the Truman administration faced after war ended in 1945, which “only slowly revealed itself. As it did so, it began to appear as just a bit less formidable than that described in the first chapter of Genesis. That was to create a world out of chaos; ours, to create half a world, a free half, out of the same material without blowing the whole to pieces in the process.”

For Obama to complain that the problems he faces are so much worse than any other president in the last 80 years is stunningly self-indulgent, to say nothing of ahistorical.

With Obama there is also the compulsive need to admonish others, to point fingers, to say that the problems he faces are not of his doing. Oh, sure; on occasions there are the grudging concessions, like in Thursday’s press conference devoted to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where Obama says, “In case you’re wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility” to ensure that “everything is done to shut this down.” But those words are always pro forma, done reluctantly and for tactical political reasons, a rhetorical trick that is meant to get him off the hook. As recently as last week, Obama, in the Rose Garden, was implicitly blaming the previous occupant of the White House for the explosion of the offshore rig Deepwater Horizon [Obama remarks linked here].

The president’s instincts are by now obvious to all: deflect blame, point fingers, and lash out at others, most especially his predecessor. We know from press reports (see here and here) that the strategy for the Democrats in 2010, two years after Obama was elected president, is to – you guessed it – blame George W. Bush.
What explains all this is hard to know. But it’s clear he has adopted an image of himself as something rare and remarkable, a historic figure of almost super-human abilities. “I am absolutely certain that generations from now,” Obama said during the summer of his presidential run, “we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”
“We are the ones we have been waiting for,” Obama and his aides said constantly during the campaign.

Hmmm. Yes, this simply adds credence to my contention that he is delusional. He really does seem to think he is some kind of Messiah figure. The whole “rise of the oceans began to slow” (because it was loaded down with oil, apparently) thing is just scary shit. There is no other way to describe it. And yet his “Resistance Is Futile” Obots didn’t bat an EYE at this Messianic statement. What does that say about them?? Oh, I think we all know that, too. And they walk among us. That’s pretty damn scary, too. They think he’s dreamy, after all, because they haven’t bother to really look, or to believe their own eyes and ears when faced with a ton of information to the contrary. So here we are, stuck with this man:

President Obama’s more unattractive personal qualities probably won’t wear well with the electorate. Americans tend to tire of those who are look back rather than ahead and are always blaming others for the problems they face.

Barack Obama — a man who was as unprepared to be president as any man in our lifetime — has over the last 16 months shown that he is overmatched by events. His poll numbers continue to drop, his health care proposal is becoming less rather than more popular, the oil spill in the Gulf is badly eroding his image for leadership and competence, and his party has been battered in election after election since November. We have now reached the point where Democrats are running against Obama and his agenda in order to survive (witness Mark Critz in Pennsylvania).

We can hope that Obama, an intelligent man, learns from the errors of his ways. But the great danger in all of this is that in the face of his troubles Obama and his aides become increasingly defensive, display a greater sense of entitlement and even a touch of paranoia. When arrogant men lose control of events it can easily lead to feelings of isolation, to striking out at critics, to bullying opponents, and to straying across lines that should not be crossed.

And so the president needs to surround himself with people who can tamp down on the uglier impulses within his administration, who are willing to tell Obama that the lore created by him, Axelrod, Plouffe, and Gibbs during the campaign has given way to reality, that cockiness is not the same as wisdom, and that spin is no substitute for substantive achievements. And Obama needs someone who has standing in his life to tell him that the presidency is a revered institution that should not be treated as if it were a ward in Chicago.

The ingredients are in place for some serious problems down the road. Those who care for the president need to recognize the warning signs now, sooner rather later, before it becomes too late, for him and for the nation.

“Intelligent”? Why oh why do we keep hearing THAT meme? How has he proven this “intelligence” thus far, I’d like to know? Tell me. Oh, sure, he got the DNC to support him, or the DNC PICKED him, more like it, knowing what an empty suit he is, and could be molded to do their bidding. But that isn’t necessarily “intelligence.” He couldn’t come up with his own policies, for crying out loud, so resorted to stealing from the REAL intelligent person in the race, then got the MSM to give him the credit. Again, not “intelligent.” There are other words for that. Corrupt, unethical, morally bankrupt (oh, sorry – that’s two words), conniving, duplicitous, and I could go on. Feel free to add your own. But none of those in and of themselves are markers of intelligence.

Bottom line though, is this: What in the hell is WRONG with this man? HOW in the hell did he get the most powerful job in the world?? WHO would want him to have this much power? And how are we going to recover from him being president? These are the questions with which we must wrestle, and so, so many more. Wow. “Thin-skinned” is the very least of what Obama is…

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…

Peggy Noonan has written a great piece on this very issue, and what it means for us, and for Obama, the headline of which sets the tone, The Risk of Catastrophic Victory; Obama is in the midst of one. Can the GOP avert one of their own?:

Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise.

If health care does not pass, it will also be a disaster, but only for the administration, not the country. Critics will say, “You didn’t even waste our time successfully.”

What a blunder this thing has been, win or lose, what a miscalculation on the part of the president. The administration misjudged the mood and the moment. Mr. Obama ran, won, was sworn in and began his work under the spirit of 2008—expansive, part dreamy and part hubristic. But as soon as he was inaugurated ,the president ran into the spirit of 2009—more dug in, more anxious, more bottom-line—and didn’t notice. At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about. The great recession changed everything, but not right away.

In a way Mr. Obama made the same mistake President Bush did on immigration, producing a big, mammoth, comprehensive bill when the public mood was for small, discrete steps in what might reasonably seem the right direction.

The public in 2009 would have been happy to see a simple bill that mandated insurance companies offer coverage without respect to previous medical conditions. The administration could have had that—and the victory of it—last winter.

Instead, they were greedy for glory.

Yes, Noonan nailed it. They got greedy:

It was not worth it—not worth the town-hall uprisings and the bleeding of centrist support, not worth the rebranding of the president from center-left leader to leftist leader, not worth the proof it provided that the public’s concerns and the administration’s are not the same, not worth a wasted first year that should have been given to two things and two things only: economic matters and national security.

Those were not only the two topics on the public’s mind the past 10 months, they were precisely the issues that presented themselves in screaming headlines at the end of the year: unemployment and the national-security breakdowns that led to the Christmas bomb plot and, earlier, the Fort Hood massacre. “That’s two strikes,” said the president’s national security adviser, James Jones, to USA Today’s Susan Page. Left unsaid: Three and you’re out.

Just as bad, or worse, the president’s focus on health care allowed the public to infer that his mind was not focused on our security. He’d frittered his attention on issues that were secondary and tertiary—climate change, health care—while al Qaeda moved, and the system stuttered. A lack of focus breeds bureaucratic complacency, complacency gives rise to slovenliness, slovenliness results in what was said in the report issued Thursday: that, faced with clear evidence of coming danger, the government failed, as they’re saying on TV, to “connect the dots.” Dots? They were boulders.

Obama and the Super Majority of Democrats have demonstrated that not only can they not see boulders, they are completely tone-deaf to the cries of the people they claim to represent:

I am wondering if the Obama administration thinks it vaguely dishonorable to be popular. If you mention to Obama staffers that they really have to be concerned about the polls, they look at you with a certain . . . not disdain but patience, as if you don’t understand the purpose of politics. That purpose, they believe, is to move the governed toward greater justice. Just so, but in democracy you do this by garnering and galvanizing public support. But they think it’s weaselly to be well thought of.

In politics you must tend to the garden. The garden is the constituency, in Mr. Obama’s case the country. No great endeavor is possible without its backing. In a modern presidency especially you have to know this, because there will be times when history throws you a crisis, and to address it you may have to do an unpopular thing. A president in those circumstances must use all the goodwill he’s built up over the months and years to get through that moment and survive doing what he thinks is right. Mr. Obama acts as if he doesn’t know this. He hasn’t built up popularity to use on a rainy day. If he had, he’d be getting through the Christmas plot drama better than he is

The Obama people have taken to pointing out how their guy doesn’t govern by the polls. This is all too believable. The Bush people, too, used to bang away about how he didn’t govern by the polls. They both added unneeded stress to the past 10 years, and it is understandable if many of us now think, “Oh for a president who’d govern by the polls.”

If Mr. Obama is extremely lucky—and we’re not sure he’s a lucky man anymore—he will get a Republican Congress in 2010, and they will do for him what Newt Gingrich did for Bill Clinton: right his ship, give him a foil, guide him while allowing him to look as if he’s resisting, bend him while allowing him to look strong.

I think the problem is that Obama bought his own hype. He forgot that it was a complete and total PR stunt by the Davids – Axelrove and Plouffe. He forgot that he really isn’t The One. Maybe he’ll be getting a rude awakening soon.

But that’s only half the story:

Which gets us to the Republicans. The question isn’t whether they’ll win seats in the House and Senate this year, and the question isn’t even how many. The question is whether the party will be worthy of victory, whether it learned from its losses in 2006 and ’08, whether it deserves leadership. Whether Republicans are a worthy alternative. Whether, in short, they are serious.

I spoke a few weeks ago with a respected Republican congressman who told me with some excitement of a bill he’s put forward to address the growth of entitlements and long-term government spending. We only have three or four years to get it right, he said. He made a strong case. I asked if his party was doing anything to get behind the bill, and he got the blanched look people get when they’re trying to keep their faces from betraying anything. Not really, he said. Then he shrugged. “They’re waiting for the Democrats to destroy themselves.”

This isn’t news, really, but it was startling to hear a successful Republican political practitioner say it.

And they surely are, but there has to be more:

Republican political professionals in Washington assume a coming victory. They do not see that 2010 could be a catastrophic victory for them. If they seize back power without clear purpose, if they are not serious, if they do the lazy and cynical thing by just sitting back and letting the Democrats lose, three bad things will happen. They will contribute to the air of cynicism in which our citizens marinate. Their lack of seriousness will be discerned by the Republican base, whose enthusiasm and generosity will be blunted. And the Republicans themselves will be left unable to lead when their time comes, because operating cynically will allow the public to view them cynically, which will lessen the chance they will be able to do anything constructive.

In this sense, the cynical view—we can sit back and wait—is naive. The idealistic view—we must stand for things and move on them now—is shrewder.

Political professionals are pugilistic, and often see politics in terms of fight movies: “Rocky,” “Raging Bull.” They should be thinking now of a different one, of Tom Hanks at the end of “Saving Private Ryan.” “Earn this,” he said to the man whose life he’d helped save.

Earn this. Be worthy of it. Be serious (emphasis mine).

Amen to that.

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.

This is rich. We know about Obama’s many, many czars. Mark Steyn believes Obama has another one, someone of whom you have heard, but who isn’t on the usual list,

Obama Makes Bush His Blame Czar. You know, he has a point – we’ve been hearing for months now “He did it!” from Obama on all sorts of issues.

Steyn begins his piece writing about “Barack’s Rock,” Valerie Jarrett:

Valerie Jarrett announced the other day that “we’re going to speak truth to power.”

Who’s Valerie Jarrett? She’s “Senior Adviser” to the president of the United States – i.e., the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. You would think the most powerful man in the most powerful nation would find a hard job finding anyone on the planet to “speak truth to power” to. But I suppose if you’re as eager to do so as his Senior Adviser, there’s always somebody out there: The Supreme Leader of Iran. The Prime Minister of Belgium. The Deputy Tourism Minister of the Solomon Islands. But no. The Senior Adviser has selected targets closer to home: “I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power. When we saw all of the distortions in the course of the summer, when people were coming down to town hall meetings and putting up signs that were scaring seniors to death.”

Ah, right. People “putting up signs.” Can’t have that, can we? The most powerful woman in the inner circle of the most powerful man on Earth has decided to speak truth to powerful people standing in the street with handwritten placards saying “THIS GRAN’MA ISN’T SHOVEL READY.” Was it only a week ago that I wrote about this administration’s peculiar need for domestic enemies?

The Senior Adviser seems to have forgotten that she is the power. Admittedly, this is a recurring lapse on the part of the administration. There was Barack Obama only the other day, blaming everything on the president – no, no, silly, not him, the other fellow, the Designated Fall Guy who stepped down as head of state in January to accept the new constitutional position of Blame Czar. Musing on problems in Afghanistan, Obama blamed the “long years of drift” under his predecessor. The new president – OK, newish president – has been Drifter-in-Chief for almost a year but he’s too busy speaking truth to the former power to get on top of the situation. It could be a while yet. In his more self-regarding moments, such as his speech to the United Nations, he gives the strong impression that the “long years of drift” began in 1776.

Indeed, Ms. Jarrett thinks throwing around phrases pulled from those who are actually in the trenches will give her some street cred. You don’t think anyone fell for that hooey, do you? Just in case you know anyone who did, you can tell them that she is a lawyer, married to a doctor, and was on the Chicago Stock Exchange. So, yeah, not exactly a career in the Peace Corps., or hell, even AmeriCorps. Just more posturing on the part of the Obama Administration.

Just like Obama’s blame shifting. Just more posturing to protect his carefully crafted image:

Rocco Landesman, head honcho at the National Endowment for the Arts, seems closer to the reality of the situation. In his keynote address to the 2009 “Grantmakers in the Arts” conference, Landesman hailed Obama as “the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar”. He didn’t mean a “powerful writer” as in a compelling voice, gripping narrative, vivid characterization, command of language, etc. He meant a “powerful writer” as in Caesar was king of the world, and now Obama is. He came, he saw, he stimulated: “If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists.”

I suppose so. He could invade somewhere and force the natives to accept degrading roles in NEA-funded performance art. He could take out the Iranian nuclear program by carpet-bombing it with unreadable literary novels. That is, if you “accept the premise” that the United States is the most powerful country in the world. Rocco Landesman may, but it’s not clear, from his actions (or inactions) in Eastern Europe, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that the president does. But, even so, it seems an odd pitch to “American artists.” Rocco Landesman, Speaking Goof to Power, isn’t the first Obama groupie to enjoy the kinky frisson of groveling obsequiousness, but he’s set an impressive new standard in public revelation thereof. Rocco’s aunt, Fran Landesman, is the great lyricist of “Spring Can Really Hang You Up The Most” as well as “The Ballad Of The Sad Young Men.” But surely there are few sadder middle-age men than her nephew, prostrating himself before his master as the most literate global colossus in two millennia.

Oh, I wouldn’t be so sure about that, but I take his point. Still, there are a whole bunch of sad “middle-age men” who would fit that bill. Chris Matthews springs immediately to mind.

Speaking of the NEA:

Meanwhile, Larry David is now doing televised NEA exhibits on his HBO show “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Christians are said to be “angry” at him because of an episode in which, after he accidentally sprays his urine on a picture of Jesus, his assistant mistakes the droplets for tears and calls in her mother to witness the miracle of Christ weeping. Ha-ha! Oh, those brave transgressive artists! Of course, Christians aren’t “angry” in the sense that two U.S. residents arrested last week are. The pair – one an American citizen, the other Canadian – were so “angry” about the Muhammad cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that they hatched a plot to kill the artist and his editor. As many commentators pointed out, Mr. David’s splashy stunt is a dreary provocation: It’s easy to be provocative with people who can’t be provoked. If he were to start urinating in a more Mecca-ly direction, he’d find an entirely more motivated crowd waiting for him at the stage door.

But I liked the point made by the Anchoress, a writer at the magazine First Things: Putting Muhammad, et al aside, if Larry David had a yen to urinate hither and yon, wouldn’t it have been “braver” to have done it to the religious icon du jour? That’s to say, Barack Obama. And then maybe Ashton Kutcher could have marveled at how even Obama’s image was empathizing tearily with all 687 million Americans without health insurance. Or, alternatively, dribbling warm champagne from his Norwegian Nobel banquet toast. C’mon, Larry. Sure, you might not have a career afterward, but, unlike any Islamo-provocations, you’re not gonna get killed. Just fired, and probably damned as a racist. But at least you wouldn’t be a simpering suck-up to power like Rocco Landesman and the other creeps.

“Religious icon du jour” – priceless. I mean, c’mon, obviously he is – just check out that Chia commercial. And I wouldn’t hold my breath on the end of sucking-up, but that’s just me:

At some point the Caesar cult has to manifest itself in an achievement – I mean a real achievement, not merely some dud prize handed out by Norwegian Lefties. Afghanistan is his now: Notwithstanding “years of drift,” whether it winds up as victory or defeat is his call. It’s Obama’s war. It’s Obama’s economy. The stimulus bill is his stimulus, and for $787 billion it created 30,000 new jobs (according to the government) or (according to the Associated Press) 25,000. Either way, you do the math. It’s Obama’s unemployment rate, Obama’s dollar, Obama’s debt. Pace Valerie Jarrett, the truth is you are the power. And those on the receiving end of it are going to be speaking a lot louder in the months ahead.

Yep, it surely is all Obama’s now. And not for nothing, but it isn’t like the Democrats didn’t control both houses for two years before Obama got into the White House. There is a lot for which Bush is responsible, but at some point, Obama needs to stop making him the Blame Czar, and start doing his job.

Or this:

And finally (!), this:

I sure as hell know I am. Oh, and all photos came from this Huffington Post site – where else, unless it was MSNBC? Ahem. There are plenty more, if you wish to go see them. I know you’re surprised by that.

I tell you who I would rather see. While the Obamas and their pal, Oprah, you know, the one who anointed Obama as The One, were wasting our tax dollars on a trip no other president has made EVER, there was someone who was hard at work for the country. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, of course, as the photos* below make clear. She was meeting with Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who is the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to discuss issues related to Muslim relations around the world. Here she is greeting him:

Here is Secretary Clinton in rapt attention as he speaks:

And here, Secretary Clinton indicates it is time to move on:

Look at how he looks at her. We have seen this look of respect from leaders all around the world. They know what so many of us know – this woman is no political lightweight. She is brilliant, she is knowledgeable, and she is capable. She will get the job done, no hemming and hawing around, no sirree.

Sophie B. Hawkins says it all in the video below:

Damn – I wish she was president, too…

* All photos by Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America