That hasn’t had an impact on the NLRB, though, which filed a suit against Boeing since it will not be using union labor here (SC is a “right to work” state). Bear in mind that NO union jobs were cut because of this move, Boeing still has plants in Washington State, and in fact, their union positions have increased.

This has been an on-going battle, with the tacit acceptance by the White House of the NLRB trying to dictate to what states companies can, and cannot, have their businesses.

So, it is in that framework that Thomas Geoghegan, an attorney in Chicago, wrote this WSJ editorial, “Boeing’s Threat to American Enterprise; When major firms move to the South, it’s usually a harbinger of quality decline. Why let that happen?”

I’m sorry, what? Is he really saying that companies that move their business South automatically suffer in quality? Why, yes he is:

[snip] We should be aghast that Boeing is sending a big fat market signal that it wants a less-skilled, lower-quality work force. This country is in a debt crisis because we buy abroad much more than we sell. Alas, because of this trade deficit, foreign creditors have the country in their clutches. That’s not because of our labor costs—in that respect, we can undersell most of our high-wage, unionized rivals like Germany. It’s because we have too many poorly educated and low-skilled workers that are simply unable to compete.

We depend on Boeing to out-compete Airbus, its European rival. But when major firms move South, it is usually a harbinger of quality decline. Over and over as a labor lawyer in the 1980s and ’90s, I saw companies move away from Chicago, where the pay was $28 an hour, to some place in South Carolina or Louisiana where the pay was about half that. While these moves aggrieved me as a union lawyer, it might have consoled me as an American if those companies went on to thrive globally.[snip] (Click here to read the rest of this drivel.)

See, because if you are having to pay twice as much to compensate the unions, you are better off. Uh huh.

It’s a miracle we Southerners can even get our dumb asses out of bed every day, ain’t it??

Now, I thought about going on my own little rant, and believe you me, I could – but there were a whole bunch of comments at the WSJ that really say it all:

Buck Hebner: After reading y’all’s comments, I realize what an astute move the WSJ made publishing this lawyer’s editorial. The WSJ staff must be howling with laughter. This one editorial accomplishes what a hundred conservative viewpoints fail to do, show readers the true stakes of this battle. In a few paragraphs, Mr. Geoghegan unmasks the true intentions of big Labor and progressive policy. They believe stirring up sectional hate and class-warfare will help them achieve their goals of unlimited Federal power and personal gain.

150 years after the Civil War was fought, the South is rising again. Not as an antagonist to the North, but as a economic engine that will help all of America become stronger through economic competition. The WSJ should be commended. Thank you.

Roger Simpson: First, Boeing did not “move” any work from Washington; as they have repeatedly stressed, the work to be done in South Carolina is new work, and there is nothing wrong economically with adding jobs to a state that could sure use them. Second, the notion that Washington citizens are somehow more “skilled” than South Carolinians is sheer arrogance, and has no basis in reality. Such babble was used when the auto manufacturers moved jobs there, and we have seen how ridiculous it was.

The real issue is that Big Labor cannot afford for people to find out that the work of $28/hour workers (who still are not satisfied with their lot) can be done just as well by $14/hour workers in another state, and without complaint. Especially a state which does not cater to the class of self-important, professional protesters, who take a cut from every worker’s check to line their own pockets, while presuming to negotiate en masse for an entire group of indivdual free citizens.

Wilson Jones II: I hope this cat remembers that Southerners probably made the steel that holds his building up (Nucor), made his blood pressure meds (Glaxco Smith Kline), assembled his BMW…. AND we were smart enough to put together a rocket that put man on the moon… Now give me some Kickapoo Joy Juice as i listen to the theme from Deliverence…

Millard Ramsey: I can’t stop laughing long enough to compose a response to this piece. I live in Chattanooga where VW has seen fit to invest $1 billion in a plant that will employ thousands of those “unskilled” Southern workers. Looks like VW has given up on quality too.

Alan Davis: Kia in Georgia, Hyundai in Alabama, BWM in South Carolina, and the list goes on and on. The rush to low quality must be the new business model.

I might add, Gulf Stream Jets are made in Savannah, GA, Toyotas are made in Kentucky, oh, and not only are Hyundais made in Alabama, but so are Mercedes Benz SUVs, and NASA is there, too, with Peterbilts being built in Denton, TX.

If you want some good laughs, though, go read the 40+ pages of comments about this incredibly offensive, arrogant, condescending, and flat out Southernist BS from this Chicago lawyer.

Boeing has every right to build its plants wherever the hell it sees fit. And our government should not be in the business of telling businesses where they can have those plants. Hell, even the Seattle Times is claiming that “Obama Administration Putting Politics Before The Economy” with this misguided assault against Boeing, and SC. No freakin’ kidding. This is all payback.

And speaking of payback – remember when Obama shoved the (also misguided) stimulus down our throats to bail out companies like GM? He claimed that the Administration would not be micromanaging GM? Well, hold on to your seats – he lied. Yes, Obama lied. In fact, the Treasury Department DID essentially run GM, and get this:

[snip] These messages reveal that Treasury officials were involved in decision-making that led to more than 20,000 non-union workers losing their pensions. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy shit. Well, that just goes to show you this NLRB debacle is not an aberration, but business as usual. Cutting TWENTY THOUSAND non-union pensions – are you kidding me with this?

Oh, but then again, what the hell do I know? I’m just a Southerner, after all…

First, I should say that before the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, women actually had a fair number of rights. They had the right to vote about the same time women in the US did. The participated in the legislature, worked as teachers, worked in the government, and generally enjoyed a number of freedoms in side and outside the home.

And then the Taliban came along. Let’s just look at some of the changes instituted by the Taliban in terms of women:

[snip] 1- Complete ban on women’s work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.

2- Complete ban on women’s activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls’ schools into religious seminaries.)

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman’s voice).

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman’s footsteps.)

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

15- Ban on women’s presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

18- Ban on women’s wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are “sexually attracting colors.”

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.

21- Modification of all place names including the word “women.” For example, “women’s garden” has been renamed “spring garden”.

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

24- Ban on male tailors taking women’s measurements or sewing women’s clothes.

25- Ban on female public baths.

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated “males only” (or “females only”).

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

29- Ban on women’s pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Pretty exhaustive list, right? Wrong. There is more. Much more. To say that women are treated poorly by the Taliban is the understatement of understatements.

So, why the hell am I going on about the Taliban? Because the Obama Administration is making good on a claim Obama made to engage with them. The theory, as I understand it, is to try and get some of them to move away from Al Qaeda. How likely that will be is debatable, but these authorities seem to think it will not work:

[snip] Some Afghan policy specialists are skeptical about whether negotiations would succeed. Peter Bergen, a specialist on Afghanistan and al-Qaida, told a US Institute of Peace seminar in Washington last week that there were a host of problems with such a strategy, not least why the Taliban should enter negotiations “when they think they are winning”.

Audrey Kurth Cronin, a member of the US National War College faculty in Washington, and the author of How Terrorism Ends, said talks with Mullah Omar and the Haqqani network were pointless because there would be no negotiable terms.

She said there could be talks with Hekmatyar, but these would be conducted through back channels, potentially by a third party. Given his support for jihad, she said, “it would be unreasonable to expect the US and the UK to do so”.

Asked how Obama’s Afghan strategy was progressing, a senior former US government official familiar with the latest Pentagon thinking said: “In a word, poorly. We seriously need to be developing a revised plan of action that will allow us a chance to achieve sufficient security in a more sustainable manner.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

So much for not negotiating with terrorists. I guess that is so Twentieth Century.

Indeed, the New Yorker has an article coming out soon about this whole issue, the US. and Taliban talks. This is something that is moving along, even if we haven’t heard much about it:

[snip]When asked for comment on the talks, a White House spokesman said that the remarks that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made last Friday at the Asia Society offered a “thorough representation of the U.S. position.” Clinton had tough words for the Taliban, saying that they were confronted with a choice between political compromise and ostracism as “an enemy of the international community.” She added, “I know that reconciling with an adversary that can be as brutal as the Taliban sounds distasteful, even unimaginable. And diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends. But that is not how one makes peace. President Reagan understood that when he sat down with the Soviets. And Richard Holbrooke made this his life’s work. He negotiated face to face with Milosevic and ended a war.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah – “distasteful” is putting it mildly. Because here is the thing that these articles do not discuss – how the US can negotiate with the Taliban not only for its Al Qaeda ways, but the horrific treatment women suffer under their rule. Here is what happens when you “negotiate” with the likes of the Taliban (h/t Breeze. Photo credit: crethiplethi.com):

[snip] On Saturday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai confirmed his government plans to take control of some of Afghanistan’s women shelters.

“Those who are found in violation of the established standards and the rules and regulations will be taken over by the Afghan government,” he said.

Under the plan, a group of Afghan officials will decide who is allowed to seek protection in a shelter.

Human Rights groups worry that Afghan government-run shelters will be disastrous for women and girls fleeing abuse.

“I don’t trust many of the people in this government to decide who should be allowed into a shelter and who should be ejected from a shelter,” said Rachel Reid of Human Rights Watch. “Often people in government have the same conservative attitudes that these girls and women are fleeing.”

According to the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, most Afghan women and girls face severe domestic violence – and many are forced into marriage well below the legal age, some as young as 8 years old. [snip}

And what does this have to do with the Taliban? This takeover of women's shelters is a (misguided) attempt by Karzai to "woo" the Taliban.

But wait, there's more:

[snip] “This regulation comes at a time when the president is trying to position himself as someone the Taliban can do business with,” said Reid. “He is reaching out and calling them [the Taliban] his brothers. He isn’t very interested in protecting his sisters, his wives, his daughters at the moment. But they desperately need his protection.”

Women’s rights activists fear this is just the first step in a much larger plan to welcome the Taliban back into political life.

“I really see that in the future they will target other women’s programs and women’s NGOs just to appease the Taliban,” said Manizha Naderi, the head of Women for Afghan Women, a group that runs shelters across Afghanistan.

On Thursday, the U.S. State Department issued a public statement saying that it was “concerned” by the takeover. Privately, American and western diplomats are furious. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

This is what happens when one tries to negotiate with this kind of organization, which is why they US deciding to engage with the Taliban is problematic. Why State personnel should be “concerned” about this takeover is indicative of the short-sightedness of this enterprise. What, did they think the Taliban would just embrace Obama’s Hopey Changyness and forfeit their belief system, including how they treat women? Please. Karzai is making this concession now, to take over the shelters, based on a less than credible rationale, to appease the Taliban. But what would the US do to appease them, and get them to come to the table?

I think this old proverb sums this whole situation up: when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Karzai, the US, or anyone else who negotiates with the Taliban are going to be tarnished in one way or another. Sometimes things that are “unimaginable” should remain so, and not made a reality. Like negotiating with the Taliban. Just a thought.

It is hard to believe that this oil spill in the Gulf is still continuing, over 70 days later. And, it is hard to believe how much this situation has been mismanaged by both BP and the US Government. Sadly, that is the case on both counts.

For instance, BP continues to act stupidly by not utilizing fishers from the Gulf area to assist in cleaning up the area, as this article by Matthew Boyle highlights, Local Fishermen Watch As Clueless Out-Of-Staters Take On Cleanup Duties:

Local out-of-work fishermen around the Gulf of Mexico are fuming at the Unified Command Center and BP after hundreds of people from other parts of the country have showed up for work along the Gulf Coast with their boats.

Bob Zales, president of the National Association of Charterboat Operators, said that those people from out of the area are taking jobs away from the fishermen and others directly affected by the spill. They’re doing it, Zales said, by getting hired onto BP’s subcontractors’ workforces.

Companies BP subcontracted to handle cleanup operations include SWS Eagle, Parsons and PEC Premier.

Zales said things would be better if the workers were experts on the handling these kinds of issues or at least knew the area.

“These so-called professionals they’re bringing in from out of state don’t have a clue how to set up boom,” Zales said. “They’re just here making money. But we’ve got people begging for work.”

Zales said the subcontractors should kick out the workers from other parts of the country and hire the local fishermen who know the area and how to do the work correctly.

“These are companies that are allegedly experts on environmental issues,” Zales said. “But, I can tell you, that from what I’ve seen, they don’t know what they’re doing. If this wasn’t so serious, it would be a good comedy.”

Yes, indeed, they should use the fishers and boat captains from the area who know the area, know how to set up booms, and have a sense of urgency about the work they are doing. Since the effect of this spill is already catastrophic, it seems to me they would want to use people who were knowledgeable about the area, and knew what the hell they were doing.

Oh, and one last tidbit from this article:

In Panama City, Fla., SWS Eagle employed at least 11 illegal immigrants, all of whom were arrested by law enforcement officials in Bay County. The officials expect that many more illegal aliens are working on cleanup sites.

“Thirty people didn’t show up for the next shift,” Ruth Corley, Bay County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson, said. “We had received several tips that BP had employed illegal aliens. It turned out it was a subcontractor situation.”

Yes, this would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious, on a number of levels. What the hell is the matter with these people?? Sheesh. Click Local Fishermen Watch As Clueless Out-Of-Staters Take On Cleanup Duties”>HERE to read the rest of this informative, and disturbing, article.

And then there is the Federal Government’s mishandling of the spill. We know they stopped the sand berms from being built in Louisiana, which is bad enough. But there is another factor that is as egregious as they come, and that is the lack of oil skimmers being pressed into service, as this article by Karen Nelson highlights,
No Skimmers In Sight As Oil Floods Into Mississippi Waters:

A morning flight over the Mississippi Sound showed long, wide ribbons of orange-colored oil for as far as the eye could see and acres of both heavy and light sheen moving into the Sound between the barrier islands. What was missing was any sign of skimming operations from Horn Island to Pass Christian.

U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor got off the flight angry.

“It’s criminal what’s going on out there,” Taylor said minutes later. “This doesn’t have to happen.”

A scientist onboard, Mike Carron with the Northern Gulf Institute, said with this scenario, there will be oil on the beaches of the mainland.

“There’s oil in the Sound and there was no skimming,” Carron said. “No coordinated effort.”

[...]

“They’re paying all these boats to run around like headless chickens,” Taylor said, as reporters gathered to hear his assessment of the Sound.

Great. Sounds like there is poor oversight and coordination of resources available to do the job that is needed to be done to keep the oil from reaching the mainland: [...]

Horn Island was doing its part Saturday, observers pointed out. The wiggly lines of sheen were coming straight at it from the south, headed for the island’s southern beaches. The island had boom in place to protect the inlets and sensitive wetlands along its northern shore, the side that faces the mainland.

Even the Pascagoula River was doing its part.

Carron pointed out the line where the river’s fresh water met the Sound’s salt water near Horn Island. All along the line was the orange oil caught between the two types of water and held at bay.

But where the failure came was in the human effort.

And that is the part that is most critical at this juncture, the human part. Rep. Taylor’s frustration was evident: [...]

Taylor slipped a note to a fellow passenger.

It said: “I’m having a Katrina flashback. I haven’t seen this much stupidity, wasted effort, money and wasted resources, since then.”

Back on land in Gulfport, Taylor let loose.

“A lot of people are getting paid to say, ‘Look! There’s oil’ and not doing anything about it,” Taylor said. “There shouldn’t be a drop of oil in the Sound. There are enough boats running around.

“Nobody’s in charge,” Taylor said. “Everybody’s in charge, so no one’s in charge.

“If the president can’t find anyone who can do this job,” he said, “let me do it.”

Give the man the job, then. If he is willing and able to oversee the clean-up in the Gulf, and he clearly has a vested interest in it, give it to him already. Heaven knows he could scarcely do worse than what we are seeing now.

There is more in this article, and you can click here to read it all, but I think the following sums up the entire problem:

Taylor and U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., took the morning flight on a National Guard helicopter with representatives of the state DEQ and BP.

After the flight Wicker said he feels it’s not too late for President Barack Obama to accept help from other countries that have offered the services of their large oil-skimming boats.

Wicker blamed bureaucracy and the president, but said, “Mississippi has been a champ from the beginning of this.”

He also said he noticed BP has been slow to accept prevention plans from local governments. [...]

Like I said at the beginning, it is a failure on the part of the two parties who need to get this right, BP and the Government. Now is not the time to be wasting money, bringing in people who haven’t a clue what to do, or letting skimmers sit idly by. Now is the time for cohesive, coherent action, by all the parties involved.

There are people who have plans available, like Taylor, to get the job done. There are fishers out of work for the time being due to the spill who could be working to contain and clean up the spill. A little common sense would go a long way here. If the people overseeing this project are failing at it, replace them immediately with those who can. Send the skimmers, use planes to spot for the boats (as the article above suggests), do anything and everything to contain and clean up this spill before it contaminates more beaches.

Time is of the essence, especially with Tropical Storm Alex bearing down. Time is of the essence….

What they wrote were potential accomplishments Obama might mention in his first State of the Union Address. I suggest you not consume any liquids (or food, for that matter), lest it end up all over your computer. Forewarned is forearmed.

First up is Mary Ellen (aka, Nunly, from Bad Habit), who is a resident of Illinois (you’ll see why I mentioned that below):

Obama Accomplishments in his first year as President:

He bought a dog.
**

He practiced his golf swing.
**
He spent plenty of family time on vacations.
**
He just learned that MA isn’t “The Kennedy Center”.
**
He found his list of campaign promises and he will dust them off and try to sell them again.
**
He found Joe Biden and will dust him off and try to sell him again. (to the highest bidder)
**
Last, but not least…he found his soul. Wait…no, false alarm, that was just a steaming pile of crap that Bo left in the Oval Office.
**
All in all…a typical year of politics for Obama. Just ask Illinois.

Yes, I would say so.

Then, regular reader, SFIndie, added:

~ He saved Chicago from the embarrassment of hosting the Olympics

~ He made it possible for more people to be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize, not for what they’ve accomplished but what they SAY they’ll accomplish

~ He got a B+ on his report card!

Ah yes, the grade he gave himself. That sounds about right for him.

As we prepare for Obama’s first SOTU, I ask what other “accomplishments” you think Obama has achieved this year? Let’s have them!

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…

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.

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.

The spontaneous march in response, the solidarity evident, brought tears to my eyes.

While we are on the subject of the GLBT community, as of this writing, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 332 service members have been dismissed under DADT under Obama and this Congress.

As for Obama and Same Sex Marriage, anyone holding their breath that Obama will do anything FOR it should breathe now. I’ve been saying this for a while, and James Kirchick writing for the Washington Post had this to say in his editorial, “Obama Said ‘I Don’t. He May Just Mean It” (h/t to American Girl in Italy):

~snip ~ When it comes to same-sex marriage, the movement can’t count on support from the current president either. When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Clinton’s comments, he told reporters that his boss “does not support” same-sex marriage. “He supports civil unions,” Gibbs assured. And despite President Obama’s statement that he opposes the ban on gays serving openly in the military, Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.) last week said that the White House pressured him to withdraw an amendment that would have prohibited funds from being spent on investigating “don’t ask, don’t tell” violations.

Even if Obama does in fact believe in marriage equality, he hasn’t done — and is unlikely to do — much to forward the cause. And apart from some toothless sniping from a handful of gay activists and donors, he seems to be getting away with it. In this way, the presumed (yet secret) good intentions of Democrats can wind up doing more harm than good: They tell the gay community that Democrats are at least better than the GOP, thus providing an excuse that can be employed endlessly while they stall.

This trust in covert backing from liberal elected officials is an article of faith among most supporters of same-sex marriage. In a recent interview with Newsweek, gay playwright Tony Kushner spoke of Obama’s secret belief in the righteousness of same-sex marriage as if it were painfully obvious. “Pbbbht! Of course he’s in favor of gay marriage!” Kushner exclaimed. His views were echoed by Steve Hildebrand, a gay political consultant who served as Obama’s deputy national campaign director. “I do believe that in his heart he will fight his tail off until we’ve achieved full equality in the gay community,” he told journalist Rex Wockner. I’ve lost track of the number of liberal friends and acquaintances, gay and straight alike, who assure me that Obama “really” supports same-sex marriage and, furthermore, that this point is obvious.

How can they be so sure? People want to like political leaders, and when someone as charismatic as Clinton or Obama comes along, it’s easy to ignore the facts that get in the way of an idealized image. That liberal politicians are indifferent — if not outright opposed — to same-sex marriage stands at utter odds with liberals’ notion of an enlightened community of like-minded progressives. “Does anybody actually believe that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama think that we shouldn’t have — that this man who is a constitutional-law scholar — is it a complicated issue?” Kushner sputtered, as if anyone who disagreed were an imbecile.

Ah yes, why actually believe Obama’s own WORDS on this issue, is the question I would have for Kushner. Obama, and Biden, have been VERY clear that their position on same sex marriage is EXACTLY THE SAME as Sarah Palin’s. Exactly the same. Identical. No difference. But please, keep lying to yourselves so you can continue to glorify The One. And go have some more Kool Aide while you’re at it. Kirchick continues:

Because people such as Kushner view political liberalism as a positive personality trait and not just a worldview, they assume that someone who opposed the Iraq war and sees himself as a “citizen of the world” would also believe in the right of gays to marry. People cannot conceive that such a cosmopolitan and eloquent man as Obama would disagree with them on an issue that they consider a no-brainer.

This is convenient for liberals because it allows them to deflect blame from politicians they like onto those they don’t, namely conservatives, the sincerity of whose opposition to same-sex marriage they never challenge. If only Republicans desisted in their homophobia, this narrative goes, justifiably timid liberals would come out of their closets of prevarication, so to speak, and support gay marriage unambiguously.

Framing gay rights as a strictly partisan issue also allows liberals to obscure the awkward fact that while they are more likely than conservatives to support same-sex marriage, a key Democratic constituency, African Americans, overwhelmingly opposes it.

Obama’s history on the issue does have a complicating twist. On a 1996 Illinois Senate race questionnaire, Obama (or more likely a staffer) wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Liberals take from this revelation the assumption that Obama’s apparent flip was insincere.

But there is nothing in his record since he became a national political figure that should give them any reason to think he will revert to his supposedly pro-gay-marriage position. And if Obama actually does believe in same-sex marriage, that makes his public opposition to it worse than it would be if he were genuinely opposed. How is it in any way reassuring to liberals to suppose that a politician agrees with them while selling them down the river? Even if Obama’s apparent flip isn’t genuine, he nonetheless acts as if it were, rendering his supposedly silent support worthless in tangible political terms. Whatever he “really” thinks, Obama’s stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain.

For some time, liberal politicians have taken a largely wink-and-nod approach to gay issues. They’ve done so with the excuse that the culture must catch up before any progress can be made (an excuse that conveniently doesn’t apply to other liberal interest groups, such as unions and trial lawyers, that do very well when Democrats are in power). Obama paid tribute to this timeworn tactic recently when he told gay activists at the White House: “I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, but by the promises my administration keeps. By the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.”

Talking about “feelings” is a cuddly liberal pastime, and Obama’s promise conjures up the phrase that Clinton famously entered into our political lexicon when he told an angry AIDS activist, “I feel your pain.” Maybe now, when it comes to same-sex marriage, he finally does. But it would be nice to have a sitting president whose feelings translate into action. (jkirchick@tnr.com James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic and a contributing writer to the Advocate.)

Good for Mr. Kirchick to actually point this out. I seriously doubt that the people who refuse to believe it will see the light, but at least he tried, right? And I appreciate the effort on his part.

Speaking of the Washington Post, we had this this, from July 31st. It is a shift from homophobia to sexism. You will most likely recognize the two “players” in this video:

I said all along that Obama, the DNC, and the MSM declared open season on women. There was little or no comeuppance for ANYONE who made disparaging, sexist, or misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. I knew it was going to continue, and possibly get worse. Here we are. With these two sexist pigs suggesting Clinton, who can run RINGS around these two intellectually, politically, and HUMANELY, drinks “Mad Bitch beer.” What a couple of _______ – you fill in the blank.

Oh, and one last thing. Vanity Fair has an article about Sarah Palin entitled, “It Came From Wasilla.” Yes, the author is a man. They are calling the former Governor, a woman, “It”?? Like when Glenn Beck said of Hillary Clinton, “It cries”??? Sheesh, the author isn’t even original. And naturally, the article is another hatchet job of this woman who dared to work her way up, buck her own party, and do right by her state. Naturally. Not for nothing, but I would have more rights in Alaska because of Sarah Palin than in most states in the Union. Just sayin’.

Back to Millbank and Cilliza: WHY DO THEY STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS???? I guess the same reason people like David Shuster does – he can call Hillary Clinton a pimp, and her daughter a whore, and keep his job with just a little slap on the wrist. So I guess what Millbank and Cillizza did was mild by comparison? Their comeuppance cannot come too soon, and it SHOULD come for this blatantly sexist attack on Secretary of State Clinton. Now. They should be fired.

Basically, the Germans wanted an adult in the room as opposed to the adolescent they got:

Hillary Clinton has intervened in talks over the future of Opel and Vauxhall at the request of German ministers as the American Government unveiled plans to sink more taxpayers’ funds into the European carmakers’ US parent, General Motors (GM).

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Finance Minister, spoke by telephone today with Mrs Clinton to seek “support in the search for a solution,” his spokesman said. Mrs Clinton pledged to intervene to demand “the greatest possible American support” from Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, the spokesman added.

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the Economics Minister, also denounced the US Treasury for dispatching a junior official who had to consult Washington through a video link at regular intervals during the night.

Mr Guttenberg said the talks had been “absurd in parts” and demanded “more seriousness and a greater willingness to compromise on the part of the US.”

It is also hoped that developments today in the US could pave the way for smoother negotiations with the two preferred bidders – Fiat, the Italian car group, and Magna, the Canadian components maker.

Nothing like insulting one of our big allies and business partners by sending some flunky to do a woman’s job. Ahem.

As for the rest of the article, some of this may have changed – who knows? I guess it depends on whatever mood Obama is in today and just how much control he is handing over to the union that bought him, but here it is:

GM’s biggest bondholders have agreed to a new offer to wipe out the automaker’s debt, raising hopes that the carmaker will make a quick exit from the now inevitable move into bankruptcy.

Bondholders that own about 20 per cent of GM’s $27.2 billion of unsecured debt agreed to wipe out the borrowings in return for a 10 per cent stake in the company and warrants to buy a further 15 per cent of the equity in the new business.

They had previously rejected an offer of a flat 10 per cent because the United Auto Workers (UAW) union had been promised more equity – 17.5 per cent – for a smaller $20 billion debt.

The remainder of GM’s debt investors, which include individuals and pension funds, have until Saturday afternoon to agree to the new offer.

If they do not support the offer, forcing GM into a contentious bankruptcy, the Government has warned that bondholders will be all but wiped out.

In exchange for the improved payout, creditors must agree not to oppose a move to sell GM’s profitable assets to a new company funded by the Government in a fast-track bankruptcy process.

Just a teensy weensy little reminder – when they talk about wiping out GM’s debt, that’s all the money WE paid to bail them out because they were “to big to fail.” So, all those BILLIONS of dollars of OUR money that Obama was handing out like candy to them? Poof – GONE!!!!

And then, add to that, the government going into the automobile business – as if it knows ANYTHING about it:

GM’s filing also revealed that the Government’s stake in the restructured company would be 72.5 per cent, much larger than the 50 per cent it was expected to be handed in return for forgiving some of the bailout cash it has provided the company.

The bigger stake is likely to increase the cost of GM’s bankruptcy to taxpayers, which is estimated to reach as high as $50 billion.

Overnight negotiations over the future of the US carmaker’s European operation broke down when GM sought more funding for Opel despite Germany’s pledge to provide billions of euros in state guarantees as well as a €1.5 billion bridging loan.

Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary today reiterated the British government’s support for Vauxhall but said it was too early to comment on what funding the UK may provide since talks over Opel needed to be resolved first.

He also said that unlike Opel, Vauxhall was not in desperate need of funding.

Lord Mandelson has extracted promises from both Fiat and Opel over the future of Vauxhall and British jobs.

Although the Business Secretary has conceded that GM Europe suffers from excess costs and is selling vehicles into a depressed market, he has made clear that the amount of money that Britain will commit will depend on the level of job guarantees in the medium term and the long term.

“Each of the bids envisages government support, but we are some way off from a discussion about government’s role in any commercial outcome to these discussions,” he said.

The assurances represent a significant victory for Lord Mandelson, who has been desperate to make sure that the German Government does not give in to election-year pressure with a pledge to protect domestic jobs at the expense of those in the UK. Berlin’s view is crucial because it is being asked to stump up billions of euros in loan guarantees as part of any deal.

Magna calculates job losses of 9,000 across Europe – 2,500 of them in Germany. However, before a Chancellery meeting last night, Magna hinted that it could shift the production of the Opel Astra from Antwerp, Belgium, to Bochum, Germany. Under that scenario, job losses in Germany would total only 300.

Fiat has promised to cut fewer than 10,000 jobs in GM Europe. That could entail closing an engine factory in Kaiserslautern, Germany. Unions fear that overlapping of Fiat’s products with those of Opel and Vauxhall will mean that redundancies could be much higher than promised.

Whew. This is really a pickle, isn’t it? We have taken over, no – check that – OBAMA and the UAW have taken over a private business in this country, about which Obama, anyway, knows NOTHING. He is not a businessman, you know. The UAW is certainly a business – some might say a racket – which has ensured ITS pensions at the expense of ours. How is it that some Americans deserve to have one and others don’t?

That’s just one of those pesky little questions I am certain Obama would label as “Un-American,” just like he did the secured creditors to GM – you know, the Teachers Retirement Fund and State Police of Indiana, for example:

Maybe Obama should follow Germany’s example, and ask Secretary Clinton to figure this out for everyone – GM, the taxpayers, the UAW, everyone. Heck, she could probably design a more aerodynamic, fuel efficient vehicle, change the oil in everyone’s car, AND not rip off the taxpayers for billions of dollars all at the same time! Oh c’mon, you know she could!! In any event, it is sure worth a try.

I mean, really, if it is good enough for Germany to have her step in, it is surely good enough for us! No doubt she would do far better at this than Obama and the UAW are doing now. I say, bring her on!!

The irony of the Prez spending his day at a Town Hall Meeting in Missouri (after a quick trip on Air Force One, of course) while the CDC has just confirmed the first death in the US of Swine Flu cannot be overlooked. Why wouldn’t his slipping poll ratings be the first thing on his mind? Why should the Prez be concerned that the first death is not even an American, but a Mexican that “travelled” here to visit family? His response to this is starting to resemble that of Paris Hilton. It’s not as if we should be surprised – he is a celebrity, after all. Besides, with the newly sworn in Kathleen Sebelius on watch, we can be assured no child will be born with H1N1.

Even the most committed Obamabot must admit that these first 100 days have been anything but the glorious ascension of The One that was predicted just six months ago. His European Victory tour was hardly that. We still have combat troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan is on shakier ground every day. Our Secretary of State has been sent to China to grovel for money and the Middle East to grovel for time and tolerance. Our Attorney General is jet setting around the globe begging for sanctuary for the terrorists the admin has promised to release next year – well, those we don’t want to keep ourselves. And while the stock market bounces up and down regularly, GDP numbers this AM are abysmal – something that makes our $12 trillion deficit look even more daunting. But never fear, the admin says that after the $400 “tax credit” and $250 “retirement benefit” hits home, we’ll bounce back. It should only be another six months or so before we know whether the stimulus worked or whether we need to do more.

I know the media is slobbering all over the airwaves declaring Obama’s First 100 Days some sort of miraculous transformation. And it is true that there have been some changes. I just can’t help wondering if they understood Obama meant changing the Constitution, drastically increasing powers of government, and taxing away freedom and liberty (and salaries) when he said he would “change” things. This is not what I was led to believe. I was expecting transparency, professionalism and competence, all the traits the Bush admin was supposedly lacking.

I wish I could say I was disappointed but I never believed the hype. I just don’t believe that anyone charged with the awesome responsibility of ensuring the safety, security and prosperity of the free world and beyond should be given a free pass because he’s more “hip” than the last guy, based on the pop culture standards of 22 year olds, of course. But I’ll sit through the Town Meeting – somehow – and listen to yet another campaign speech full of dire warnings and mile high promises of future action, knowing full well nothing has been delivered yet.

WE ARE LIVE NOW! CLICK ON THE ARROW TO JOIN US!

Come on by and let your hair down. You’ll be free to RANT about what you REALLY think about Michelle and Barack’s destruction of the once-unparalleled position of the United States as the globe’s clear superpower, both real and symbolically. I, for one, can’t take it anymore. Be sure to share what you’ve been saying and e-mailing to friends and family. Copy and paste any especially Obama-damning e-mails or blog comments you’ve written.

Axelrod puppet Barack Obama studies Axelrod puppet Deval Patrick as the latter offers empty slogans and gestures

David Axelrod manufactures commodities, not politicians: they don suits; they read teleprompters; they promise something new and unprecedented; but these newfangled objects cannot govern. No, I am not referring to Barack Obama, although this news does not bode well for Axelrod’s latest product; I am discussing Deval Patrick, who according to a 7News Boston poll has lost all credibility with the voters of Massachusetts.

Readers of No Quarter recall how Obama and Patrick read from the same script penned by David Axelrod.

I guess the voters of Massachusetts are finally experiencing a moment of disenchantment. Perhaps they now realize that all Axelrod’s commodities cum politicians can offer are “just words.” I quote the Boston Herald:

The survey of 400 registered voters – Democrats, Republicans and unenrolled alike – shows angry Bay Staters quickly losing faith in the state government, with Patrick taking the biggest hit.

Only 34 percent of those surveyed in the poll conducted for 7News by Suffolk University say the governor deserves re-election, while a stunning 47 percent say it is “time to elect someone else.”

Voters gave Patrick a 43 percent unfavorable rating and a 44 percent favorable rating. The rest are undecided….

Asked about Patrick’s job performance, 49 percent disapproved, 40 percent approved and 11 percent were undecided….

Patrick’s dismal poll numbers come after battering in the press over his naming of a senator pal to a costly plum post, raises for sheriffs, addition of two pricey staffers to the Pike payroll, embarrassing comments by his transportation secretary and his own dismissal of the controversies as “trivial.”

Aloof and oblivious to the cronyism of his administration, the incompetence of his Cabinet members and the apparent lack of ethics and fiscal responsibility he and his operatives are exhibiting, Deval Patrick is the ominous reflection of his political semblable Barack Obama.

No wonder why the NRSC has created the following advertisement:

The NRSC now knows what we have always known: Obama is just another Patrick. Indeed, he is just an updated version of a model everyone now knows is failed. He is, in other words, just so many ethereal words.

I am sure Obama will dismiss all the contradictions highlighted in the NRSC advertisement as so much trivia. He will probably claim that we cannot hold him accountable for what he promised during the campaign. After all, all he had uttered before the desperate crowds were “just words.” And I am sure he will become as aloof and oblivious as Patrick has as more and more voters lose confidence in his ability to lead as controversy compounds controversy. Commodities are alluring during a campaign, but they prove to be defunct the moment one tests their ability to govern. All that once appeared to be solid evaporates into so much hot air, I guess. The object that seemed so tangible in its promise provided nothing more than an impalpable mirage.

Obama is quickly becoming a Patrick, who from all indications is dead on arrival in 2010. Certainly if Obama continues on the path he has forged thus far, he too will be a flash in the pan, a wonder who lasted one term. This should be of no surprise, for he and Patrick are cut from the same cloth, hewn from the same block of wood, carved by the same Axelrod. And besides, his/tory has this tendency to repeat itself, rendering the past, the present and the future all into one grand, temporally suspended farce. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would have made her/story. For she was not assembled in Axelrod’s toxic factory.

We can’t do it ALL at once!!! When China’s premier is questioning our credit worthiness and Larry Johnson is predicting runaway inflation [Larry said that on Batchelor's Sunday show], methinks we need to get our house in order and then build the add-ons — and only if we can. If we have to wait a few years, we wait a few years.

Now I realize that the Teflon Don of D.C., Mr. Barack Obama, has some experience buying things he can’t afford, like his mansion in Chicago, but perhaps the American people realize they’re not going to get such sweetheart deals with crooks in order to bail themselves out of massive debt because they’re already in bed with the Chinese Communists to the tune of ONE-FOURTH of ALL U.S. DEBT (!), and the American people would eventually like to sleep alone, fleece-free, and out from under the thumb of the Chinese, so much so we dare not mention human rights! (More about that tomorrow!)

Larry Doyle’s and my hero, Sheila Bair:

JUST A THOUGHT: Since Sheila has the FDIC job down cold, could she also pinch-hit as Secretary of the Treasury? Just a thought …

… and while we’re dreaming, can Hillary pinch-hit for Obama as president?

(I always say to myself: A girl can dream. Why not. Sometimes it sure beats the hell out of reality.)

Is this relationship only based on the idea that Larry Johnson and others validated your interest in hating Obama and his supporters? Or Are you interested in anything positive or even rational discourse?

If this relationship is based solely on hatred then I’m afraid there are some who never really appreciated who Larry Johnson really is. They adored him when he seemed to be singing their song, apparently validating their hatred, but then when they found out he wasn’t validating their hatred, they turned on him. Haven’t we heard this tune before? I have.

Just last year Larry Johnson dared question Obama’s qualifications and wherewithal and the supporters for Obama cried, “I thought I knew you. I used to enjoy your blog. Stick to your anti-terrorism commentary!” They attacked him repeatedly because he didn’t validate their biases. When he came out in support of Clinton he was challenged on his integrity and called a “shill” based on their assumptions and bias against Clinton. I can tell you that I wasn’t surprised when Larry came out in support of Hillary Clinton as the Obama supporters ran away to their Daily Kos meetings to validate their feelings.

It is ironic that those who now proclaim their hatred for Obama mocked the Obama supporters who turned on Larry last year when he didn’t validate their bias? Remember those days? “Where’s the Larry I knew?” they yelped when he didn’t read their script. The mantra around here was that the Daily Kossacks were ‘kool-aid’ drinkers because their reactions seemed completely irrational.

I know what Larry is aiming for; rational, fact based, analysis and criticism. Hate does not provide; rational, fact based, analysis and criticism. It is an emotion, thats all. It is entirely selfish and irrational. One can hold contempt without being hateful. All of the worst crimes against humanity are rooted in hatred and joined with justifications that are entirely self-serving. So many despots and leaders have destroyed their country and others with hatred. Many critics of policy are written off when it is clear they are coming from hatred instead of principle.

In my case, I want George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others to go to prison for KNOWN crimes, not just believed ones, and yet, I don’t harbor hatred for them. I got scolded today for not saying I hate them, and that person who I love just couldn’t convince me that I had to hate these men. In the end they had to realize that we just don’t agree about ‘hating’ people.

I too will stand with Larry in the coming years to challenge Obama on his decisions, to share news of his actions, and demand accountability. My children’s’ future requires that I remain vigilant. I am not a Democrat and have no such loyalties to their party. I voted for someone else to be the nominee. I voted for someone else to be President. And after 8 years of the last administration the good news is I am growing immune to the irrational blather of those who place hate as some sort of principle.

And despite the projected expectations of the leaderless among us, Larry didn’t tell anyone to think or feel anything. It is his blog and he gave his opinion on the line of discussion going on here. He called for reasoned and civil comments so people can understand the pain that runs beneath the hatred.

“Farewell my fair weather friend…” – Johnny Rotten, the former singer for the Sex Pistols, sang in his group, Public Image Limited.

If you “know” Larry Johnson, how is it that the mercurial nature of these comments reflects that you don’t know him at all?

I don’t even want to say I know Larry well, but I can say, after we were damaged by Hurricane Ike, Larry was sure to wish us well before and check in afterwards. When I had other pressing matters to deal with, Larry showed legitimate concern. When I’ve dealt with him, he’s been a fair player each time. And I will stand with him no matter what fire you guys throw at him. I feel the same about Susan. I often disagree with them, but we handle the disagreement with respect. I’ve even had them ask to make sure I am keeping my criticisms to the facts instead of getting caught up in the person. I agree with them on this and it has helped to clarify my goals in discourse.

Good luck to those of you who have a different opinion than Larry. But insulting those who are different than you with hyperbole ridden comments like, “oh yeah, let’s just sing Kumbaya” really does more to discredit your own appearance than it suddenly makes me break out a guitar and sing that tune. It is your projection, not mine.

I will learn to forgive the hostilities, not for their sake, but for my own sanity. And this exercise in expression makes my values even more clear.

Thank you Larry; for showing principle and backbone. I appreciate your honesty and integrity.

Times Online reports calls for Emanuel’s resignation as Obama’s Chief of Staff. I quote with emphasis:

THE bullish, foul-mouthed but effective Chicago arm-twister Rahm Emanuel has come under pressure to resign as Barack Obama’s chief of staff after it was revealed that he had been captured on court-approved wire-taps discussing the names of candidates for Obama’s Senate seat.

Emanuel’s presence at the heart of the scandal threatens to roil the president-elect’s administration as a Chicago prosecutor builds his corruption case against Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor.

Not only should Emanuel resign as Obama’s Chief of Staff; he should resign from the US House, where he is also Chair of the House Democratic Caucus. According to the Chicago Tribune, he is yet to vacate his House seat. I quote:

Though now working full-time on Obama’s transition, Emanuel has yet to resign his congressional seat. Illinois law has a different process for filling vacant House seats than Senate seats. When Emanuel resigns, a special election will be held for his replacement.

Emanuel should resign as Chief of Staff and as member of the US House, as sources have confirmed his involvement in the scandal surrounding Obama and Blagojevich. I quote the Chicago Tribune again:

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Promising to rid Congress of what she called a Culture of Corruption, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated the following after Democrats seized control of the House in 2006:

“The intention of our Founding Fathers was for Congress to be a marketplace of ideas. The Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house – for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play. It is just not right.

“Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history.

Communicating with Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff, submitting a list of candidates Obama approved to Blagojevich through operatives and advisors and participating in conference calls in which Blagojevich was attempting to forge a “pay to play” deal with Obama and Jarrett, Emanuel is engaging in the “pay to play” practices Nancy Pelosi decried on January 6, 2006. If Democrats are truly committed to ridding the House of ethical clouds, cronyism and corruption, then Emanuel must resign as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

He must also resign as Obama’s Chief of Staff, for Obama has promised “a new dawn of American leadership,” a new dawn that includes a “clean break from the broken politics of Washington.” Emanuel’s direct participation in conversations with Blagojevich reveals that Obama will never enact a clean break if Emanuel is one of his chief advisors. Barack Obama’s inability to disclose all communications between his staff and that of Blagojevich in a timely manner is also a sign that no clean break with the politics of the past will occur during an Obama administration.

I wonder if more calls for Emanuel’s resignation will surface. And if such calls surface, I hope they also include calls for him to resign from the US House. For not only should the White House be free of Emanuel’s corruption; Democrats in the House do not need to be tied to the scandal that is the “pay to play” politics of Washington, DC, and of inner city Chicago, where Democrats Rahm Emanuel, Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama were schooled in the art of corrupt machine politics.