President Obama's Post "Shellacking" Speech

The White House YouTube channel not only has the entire speech and press conference from the day after the midterm election, but an interactive transcript. Wish I'd seen that before I started trying to transcribe what the president was saying. Here's the video in its entirety:


One of the parts I found most telling came at the 50 minute mark. The reporter asked the president "Are you willing to make any changes in your leadership style?" This is what the president said:

Folks didn’t have any complaints about my leadership style when I was running around Iowa for a year and they got a pretty good look at me up close and personal. They were able to lift the hood and kick the tires. I think they understood that my story was theirs. I might have a funny name and I might have lived in some different places, but the values of hard work and responsibility and honesty and lookin’ out for one another that had been instilled in them by their parents those were the same values that I took from my mom and my grandparents. So the track record has been that when I’m out of this place, that’s not an issue. When you're in this place it is hard not to seem removed. And one of the challenges that we've got to think about is how to I meet my responsibilities here in the White House which requires a lot of hours and a lot of work but still have the opportunity to engage with the American people on a day-to-day basis and give them confidence that I’m listening to them.

So the president admitted what many of us have been saying for years -- that he is a better campaigner than he is a president. He admits that he was successful in Iowa, shaking hands and giving speeches, but not as successful in the White House. Interestingly, this seems similar to his experience in Harvard Law School, where he first showed his talent at campaigning and also showed that, once elected, he leaves the actual work to others.

Unfortunately, while we have a political system that requires a person be a good campaigner as a prerequisite to getting into office, we will often have people running the government whose talent stops at the point that they are sworn in. It would be nice if we as a voting public weren't so swayed by personality and charm and poise and looks, but we are. We often wrongly conclude that if you are good enough and smart enough to run a good campaign, that will translate to your talent once you've taken office. But as our current president has proved, this is a false syllogism.

Barack Obama had no policy ideas, no plans for America, no solutions. What he had was the ability to tap into the national zeitgeist at just the right time. Plus, the Republicans helped him out with a lackluster campaigner in John McCain and a divisive lightning rod in Sarah Palin. And George Bush did much to inflame the anti-Republican passions with his disconnected affect and inability to articulate. This plus the excitement that Obama engendered led to his big win in 2008. But this win was misinterpreted as a shift to the left in America -- and the election Tuesday confirmed that the country does not want to move in that direction.

Many in America have been feeling buyer's remorse since Obama was sworn into office and Tuesday was the first chance to demonstrate that dissatisfaction. They had believed his campaign rhetoric about change only to discover that their trust was misguided. His was as one-sided an administration as Nixon's, distrustful and rejecting of the other side, patronizing the opposition, full of hubris. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid thought they could belittle and marginalize the Republicans and restructure the government in their image, regardless of what the American people really wanted.

Their liberal agenda received the shellacking -- his word -- that it deserved. Now it's up to the Republicans to take their mandate and turn it into some real change in government. Go back to the original Republican values that were abandoned during much of the Bush administration. Bring spending down, help businesses create jobs, streamline the government, and keep our nation safe. They have two years to make good on their promises and to justify the faith the American people have placed in them.

Obama shoots from the hip -- stupidly

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet used the president's press conference on national health insurance to delve into the deep waters of race in 21st Century America by asking the president his take on the arrest of his friend, Harvard Professor Henry Gates, Jr., on charges of disorderly conduct following a stop at the professor's home

By way of background, Gates' neighbor called the police about a potential burglary when she spotted two black men with backpacks breaking down the front door of the Gates home. Apparently, Gates had lost his car keys following a out of town trip and he, along with his driver, broke down the door to gain entry.

Police responded and, upon seeing Gates and asking to speak to him, were allegedly confronted by an angry Gates who refused to talk instead reportedly shouting, "This is what happens to black men in America." Rather than talking to the police and confirming that he was the home's owner, he accused the police of being racist. He was arrested then later released for failing to cooperate with authorities.

The journalist asked the president for his take on the incident. Instead of doing what any other person who had graduated from law school would do -- decline to comment on the specifics of the case if he does not have all the relevant information -- the president decided instead to unilaterally and without substantiation attack the police of Cambridge, Mass and assert that they "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates at his home.

Interesting how "prejudice" has as its component parts "pre" and "judge." And that is precisely what Obama did in taking sides in this case -- he immediately prejudged the policy actions as "stupid" without for a moment considering his friend's complicity in the fracas. Admitting "he might be a little biased here," he nevertheless went forward to castigate the arresting officers and raising the broader history of the police disproportionately arresting minorities.

But then, the journalist's question basically begged him to go down that road. "What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America," she asked the president. Given an opportunity to weigh in on such a large question, while in the process avert attention away from his failed health care policies, the president jumped at it.

He didn't need the facts, he didn't need the circumstances beyond police versus black professor. The police must be the stupid ones. Not the professor who immediately -- and since his whole professional life has been about race issues, how could he not -- made this a racist issue. They were there because he was black, not because he had broken down the front door. He refused to answer their questions because they had no right to question him. He was being treated unfairly because of his race.

It is a racist self-fulfilling prophecy. Act as if you can't trust the police, as if they're suspicious of you, as if they won't give you a fair deal, and voila you have an incident like this one. How would you have handled the police coming to your home on a burglary call after you broke in yourself? Probably not as Professor Gates. He has possibly let his life's work take over his life view and sees everything through the prism of race.

But what is the president's excuse for taking sides in a potentially explosive situation without the facts? What was benefited by his glib comment of stupidity? He is as much the president of those officers, who risk their lives every day on the job defending all of Cambridge, Mass., as he is the president of his friend, Prof. Gates. They all deserved his impartiality and neutrality until the facts were known, and then a sober and reasonable assessment of the facts of the situation. He owes those policemen an apology.

The Hands-Off President

President Obama, during a news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, was asked about the dispute over the Iranian election. He replied, “You know, I take a wait and see approach… It’s not productive, given the history of US- Iranian relations to be seen meddling. The US president, meddling in Iranian elections.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the “observer in chief.” So fearful of making the wrong move, he opts instead to do nothing. The leader of the world’s largest and most influential democracy, he won’t even stand up for the basic principles on which the country was founded and by which he was elected.

He says, tepidly at best, that "people's voices should be heard and not suppressed." Way to go out on a limb. He might as well be discussing the mini-controversy surrounding the final voting on American Idol and not a dispute about a sham election in a theocratic country run by Islamic extremists who control every aspect of daily life.

This was an election in name only. No one can run for president who isn’t approved by the Guardian Council which is comprised of six members appointed by the Supreme Leader and six others selected by the Majlis. This Guardian Council ensures that no true reformist candidate ever runs for president as they only approve candidates who are dedicated to Islamic values as they see them.

Regardless of whether Mousavi was, in truth, a “reform” candidate, it is clear that as between him and Ahmadinejad, Mousavi was the lesser of two evils and a more “democratic” candidate.

Mousavi ran on a platform that sounded some familiar democratic themes: to institutionalize social justice, equality and fairness, freedom of expression, and to root out corruption. He supported private ownership of the TV airwaves and moving supervision of the police to the President and away from the Supreme Leader.

Mousavi also took a less hard line on the U.S. and Israel and, unlike his opponent who denies the Holocaust, denounced the killing of Jews.

When it was announced that Ahmadinejad had won – indeed had won in a landslide – the news was disappointing to the West. But when further news started coming out of Iran that pointed to voting irregularities – for example, Mousavi’s home town voting overwhelmingly for his opponent – that was even more troubling for the West.

So how did Obama react to the news that the election may have been a sham? Obama said that he had "deep concerns" about the election and "stands strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not suppressed."

He hastened to add, however, that "how that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide."

Not exactly, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” material. No, Obama sounds much more like Jimmy Carter … and we know how well that worked out for U.S. foreign policy.

Before the election, Obama was quick to paint Mousavi’s candidacy as a victory for Obama’s approach in Iran. “We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran,” Obama was quoted as saying. “Obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change.”

“Ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide, but just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing people looking at new possibilities,” the president said. “Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”

Well, the “robust debate” ended up with the status quo – no change, no reform and a slap on the hand of anyone hoping for any form of democracy in that country. Protests were met harshly and reports are that over twenty protesters have been killed. Communication from Iran to the outside world is being hampered by the government and the foreign media is being limited in what it can show of what is going on there.

Foreign leaders have taken a clear stand against the violence in Iran, with Britain's Gordon Brown saying that the European Union unanimously condemns violence against protesters and the German Prime Minister using similarly straight-forward language in denouncing the attacks on protesters.

This is what the president has said of these recent developments:

“Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we....respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.

My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election.

But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

Now, with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran, I've always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad's statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity. Those are core interests not just to the United States but I think to a peaceful world in general.

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days.

And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.”

That's it -- the extent of the U.S. President's interest in Iran is that he'll be watching. He has no opinion, he has no suggestions, he has no requests, he has no preference and little reaction beyond the stalwart "deeply troubled" -- whatever that means.

Obama has perfected the art of saying very little in quite a few words. He is troubled that the election may have been stolen, he is troubled that protesters are being treated harshly, he is troubled that the perception that there was a chance for reform in Iran was just an act. Troubled?

But that's as far as he's willing to go. He's happy to sit back and watch as events unfold. That is not leadership -- that's disengagement.

Obama's VP, known for his lack of self-censorship, said, of Iran, “There's an awful lot of questions about how this election was run." True, Joe, but your president isn’t asking for any answers. He’ll just wait and see. He's no meddler.

Sonia Sotomayor -- Our Next Supreme Court Justice?

Today President Obama announced his choice to replace David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor. Ms. Sotomayor is a dream candidate and likely to be quickly approved. She was first nominated to the bench by a Republican, the first President Bush, and she had the wisdom never to have children, which eliminates the otherwise automatic nanny-gate fiasco any time a woman is nominated for anything.

She has a compelling story which the Republicans will fail to jump on even though it provides ample proof – as does our President’s ascendancy -- that America is the land of opportunity and that anyone who works hard can achieve beyond their wildest dreams in this great country.

But we will probably miss the opportunity to tell that story and instead we will allow the Democrats to bathe in her glory while simultaneously telling the average American that you cannot achieve anything without the government’s help.

How did she manage to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton and become editor of the Yale Law Review when the United States is such a white-male-dominated bastion of unequal opportunity and institutionalized racism? Perhaps she did it by not believing the Democrats’ version of two Americas and by realizing that the American dream is available to all its citizens.

Now, all this is not to say that I’m thrilled with her selection. She has written some opinions recently that I am entirely opposed to, most notably her ruling supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to discard the firefighter promotion exam results when no black or Latino passed the exam. I would think her own life story would tell her that it is not one’s race or ethnicity that matters, but their abilities. Somehow, she was able to make her way through three separate exams to achieve her goals.

Her confirmation hearing will be interesting because, as an appellate court judge, she has been the author of a number of appellate decisions that her future brethren on the court have overturned. While Obama may want to paint her as a centrist, moderate jurist, that does not seem to reconcile with her record.

Yes, she “saved” baseball by ending the strike when, as a district court judge, she ruled in favor of the player’s association and against the owners who had been trying to end free agency and salary arbitration. With this pro-union decision, her liberal bona fides were secured.

But, as they say in the TV infomercials, that’s not all. We also have her statements to guide us as to her view of not just race and gender issues, but the issue of the role of the Supreme Court. And none of these will warm a Republican’s heart.

In a speech given at the liberal Valhalla, U.C. Berkeley, back in 2002, Sotomayor embraced the idea that a jurist’s gender and racial identity would influence their decision-making. She said in part, "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....” She then elaborated, “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....”

"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

I haven’t seen such blatant white male bashing since the Wanda Sykes baby shower.

With her belief that the gender and race of a jurist i is at all relevant to making a just decision, one wonders how the all white Supreme Court gave us Brown v. Board of Education or an all male Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade.

There is no question that Sotomayor intends to be an activist judge as she has gone on record that it is in the highest courts that does more than merely interpret the law.

During a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor answered a student’s question about the difference between the Federal District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals, by saying that the Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She went on to say, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [Audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [Audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."

In addition to obvious elocutionary gifts, Ms. Sotomayor seems to suffer a bit of Biden-esque excessive sharing. This could make this question and answer session during the confirmation hearings DVR-worthy.

Obama's Foreign Policy -- I'm Sorry, So Sorry

We all remember Michelle Obama’s statement in early 2008 that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” I am sorry to say that after fewer than one hundred days into her husband’s administration, I am not proud of my country. At least, not proud of the America that Obama and his administration represent.

In less than three months, Obama has dramatically refashioned the domestic and foreign policy of the United States, ignoring over 200 years of his predecessors’ policies and approaches. Over the centuries, the U.S. has been isolationist or imperialistic, we have been a market economy and we have embraced Keynesian economics. But whatever policies were in place, the presidents were motivated by the belief that his responsibility was towards protecting and defending the United States and maintaining its position as the most powerful country in the world. Even Jimmy Carter did not actively seek to undermine our power and prestige in the world to this extent (and we all saw where his show of weakness led us).

Then along came the chosen one, the messiah, the giver of hope, the promise of change. Well, he was partially right, he is giving us change. A new economy – wealth redistribution, a government funded by a fraction of the population. Where 10% of tax payers pay over 75% of federal taxes. Where 50% pay nothing. Zero. Even though we all share equally in the roads, the defense, the numerous governmental services.

And he’s giving us a new foreign policy – one of contrition and self-flagellation. Where our president panders to thugs who have ridiculed, maligned and threatened our country. Where our president embraces those who deny their own citizens civil rights. Where the president and the rest of his cabinet is on a mission to apologize to as many foreign leaders as possible for the United States.

Obama is going around the world apologizing for the United States and saying, in effect, we were a terrible, horrible, no good country but now that I’m president, all that is going to change. We will embrace Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, any of our so-called enemies. We will open our hands to you as friends, because you couldn’t possibly mean all the anti-American things you’ve been saying all these years. You will be hypnotized, like the rest of my country, by my awkward, halting speaking style and my feigned Christ-like sincerity and you will stop your attacks on the U.S.

I can’t possibly express how dangerous this is for America. Having someone as ill-informed, ill-prepared and plain naïve running around the world spewing all this mea culpa garbage without the faintest idea of what he is doing is like having a three-year-old playing with a loaded gun.

I just hope all the damage that is being done can be fixed in 2012.

Obama in Europe

President Obama's first trip to Europe has been hailed -- as pretty much everything he does -- as an enormous success. The media applauded his humility and conciliatory approach. They cheered the end of the age of arrogance, the hallmark of the Bush Administration.

Yet the fact that the president is so wildly popular, and literally bowed himself in front of the world, makes the fact that he left Europe without much that he had hoped is a troubling development.

Obama’s trip had three main goals, only one of which was reached. The first, and easiest, was to convey to the rest of the world that George Bush was gone for good. The cowboy who irritated them with his talk of a war on terror and the axis of evil had left the building. Replacing him was Mr. Congeniality, the man voted most likely to cause teenage girls to swoon, right after the guy who plays Edward in the Twilight series.

He was met with cheering crowds and fawning fellow leaders. They reacted to his manifest charms with adoration and adulation. He was just what they were looking for in a U.S. president. Obama was apologetic. He was contrite. He was self-effacing. Well, he was Bush-effacing, but still. He thrust his hand out more eagerly than a car salesman at a Chrysler lot.

This was no just a kinder-gentler president, this was the ostensible leader of the free world practically lying prostrate in front of the rest of Europe, begging them to like him, to forgive him for our myriad past sins, to let us back into the club. Our president only knows one mode of operation that works for him – he always has to be running for something. He wasn't the U.S. president -- he was an ambassador to the world.

Begging the question is it more important for the U.S. to be liked or feared?

Of the goals Obama wasn't able to accomplish, the first was to get the leaders of the G-20 to agree to more governmental spending to stimulate the economy. Our good fiends, France and Germany, flatly refused to increase domestic spending.

Obama had hoped to get Europe to agree to take some of the detainees from Guantanamo Bay detention center, yet France agreed to take only one Algerian prisoner from the center and no one else.

Neither was he successful in getting Europe to participate more significantly in the war in Afghanistan. European leaders offered only limited civilian aid and noncombat troops to help train Afghan police and soldiers, but no commitment to sending combat troops to serve alongside the American fighters.

France's Sarkozy said, "We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan." Merkel of Germany said, "We have a great responsibility here." Yet neither would put the combat troops where they are needed.

And if Obama thought his gestures of friendship and humility would help gather support from the rest of the world against North Korea's missile launch, he was quickly disabused of that idea.

After the launch, Obama said, "North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles." He went on to add, "Words must mean something . . . The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons."

Well, the U.N. didn't think it needed to stand with the U.S. and EU against the missile launch, failing to agree on a joint resolution denouncing North Korea's aggressive action.

So what's the lesson for Obama? There's the theoretical world, and the real one. In his world, you can reach out to your friends and enemies alike, speak from the heart, offer support and contrition, hope that your good will might win people over to your side. In the real world, the one Ronald Reagan lived in, you could be friendly and affable, but your friends knew they had our undying support and our enemies knew they should fear us.

I've said it before, but it's applicable here. Obama needs to do more than be anti-Bush. He has to find a way to use his formidable interpersonal gifts to portray a good, but determined and strong, U.S. It is simply not in our best interest as a nation to come across to the rest of the world as scared, or needy, or subservient.

When Obama was seen apparently bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia, that was an uncomfortable sight. Our country, and our leaders, should bow to no one. Our president is answerable to the American public, but to no one else.

Obama represents all of us when he travels abroad, and we want that representative to hold his head high and be proud that he is leading the greatest country in the world. I don't think we want to see him as the prostrate penitent almost embarrassed of his country.

I know that I don't even want him to act as just another head of state, as if the U.S. did not have a special position in the world. I want the U.S. president to project power, confidence and conviction. Instead, Obama seemed to heed only half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice -- he spoke softly, but is trying to bury our big stick.

Buyer's Remorse

After selling himself to the American people more relentlessly than the Geico gecko, ETrade baby and FreeCreditReport troubadour, could some of the luster be off the Barack Obama brand? Is it possible that the country could be starting to question exactly what it was they bought when they elected him four months ago?

First, Obama has had a great deal of trouble in just assembling his cabinet due to poor vetting and lack of focus. Though, considering the nominees were about to work for the least vetted president ever, it should have come as no surprise. Then you had the fact that he and his administration set the wrong tone from the outset, scaring the American people when they needed to be assured.

But things are unraveling for the president at a fast pace -- and what he's losing is his mystique, his allure, his messiah-like glow. It is not surprising that his Vice President is already mocking his Christ-like image, explaining at the 124th annual Gridiron Dinner in Washington, D.C. that Obama was missing the dinner because he was preparing for Easter, “because he thinks it’s about him [Obama].”

There was, of course, his unfortunate attempt at humor on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno when he inserted his foot in his mouth more deftly than any Bush had in the past, saying he bowled so poorly, "it was like the Special Olympics or something."

Then last night, 60 Minutes broadcast a twenty minute interview with the president, conducted by Steve Kroft. Now, 60 Minutes is not known for a conservative bent, nor have they ever been associated with any vast right wing conspiracy. Yet, their reporter observed something very odd in the demeanor of our 44th president during the interview. Obama had the giggles.

During an interchange on bailouts,Obama said, "I just want to say that-- the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money (LAUGHS) into the auto industry."

He continued laughing and Kroft commented on the awkwardness of the president "laughing about some of these problems." Kroft imagined the viewers might be taken aback seeing the president "sitting there just making jokes about money." Kroft then said, after being interrupted again by Obama's laughter, what many of us were thinking, "Are you punch drunk?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He's suffering from extreme flop sweat and is experiencing the nervous laughter that comes with it. After all, he has no clue what he's doing, and everyone is looking to him for answers. You could laugh or you could cry. Obama has chosen to laugh.

But the missteps from Obama don't stop here. There is the letter he wrote to former French president Jacques Chirac which used the type of diplomatic formality more appropriate if Chirac were still president, and not Nicolas Sarkozy. This unfortunate breach of etiquette is more troublesome because Sarkozy already has felt snubbed by Obama and his extending his offer of friendship and work to Sarkozy's predecessor could only exacerbate his feelings.

Obama has already upset another of our most significant allies, snubbing Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this month. When Brown traveled to D.C. to meet with the president, Obama rejected the idea of a joint press conference, instead letting the media in for a quick meet and greet. It was expected that the U.S. President would have wanted to stand side-by-side as Presidents and Prime Ministers have time and again. But, he relegated Brown to the back room, while making time to meet later with Boy Scouts.

It's amateur hour in Washington, even the most rabid of his supporters must see that now.

We know, intellecutally, that we shouldn't treat a campaign for president like an extended QVC episode -- but we did, and now we're stuck with the product that had the best pitch, but didn't deliver what it promised.

Obama's Iran Problem

In a three minute address to the people and government of Iran, President Obama demonstrated his foreign policy -- apologetic, unrealistic and weak. Here is what he -- as President of the United States -- told this hostile regime and its people.

"I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You too have a choice. The United states wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place among the community of nations. You have that right. But it comes with real responsibilities. And that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

So on the occasion of your new year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome where you and all your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Sadi, so many years ago: the children of Adam are limbs to each other having been created of one essence.

With the coming of a new season, we are reminded of this precious humanity which we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning. Thank you and (here he signed of in what was probably Farsi)."

Is anyone else having a Jimmy Carter flashback? Haven't we already seen the folly in the "can't we all just get along" approach to our enemies -- and do not mistake for a moment that as long as we support Israel, we are Iran's mortal enemy. It's hard not to react to the Neville Chamberlain-esque naivete inherent in treating a dangerous, hostile regime who has vowed the destruction of one of your strongest allies as a potential friend.

While we can debate how much bombast needs to come from the White House in dealing with our enemies, this mealy-mouthed supplication is not the answer. It was, frankly, embarrassing.

The Iranian response? Let's just say, they weren't conciliatory.

"We welcome the interest of the American government to settle differences. The American government should realise its previous mistakes and make an effort to amend them in order to put aside differences.

The Obama administration so far has just talked. By words and talking the ... problems between Iran and America can not be solved.

Nowruz (the Iranian New Year which falls on Friday) is a sign of fundamental development in nature and Obama should learn from this to make fundamental changes in his policy towards Iran.

Supporting Israel is not a friendly gesture and the new year is an opportunity for the United States to change this policy.

By fundamentally changing its behaviour America can offer us a friendly hand. So far what we have received have been unfriendly fists. Unlimited sanctions which still continue and have been renewed by the United States are wrong and need to be reviewed.

The Iranian nation has shown that it can forget hasty behaviour but we are awaiting practical steps by the United States."

Iran's spokesman had no problem making his country's position crystal clear. So long as the United States supports Israel, we will be Iran's enemy. There will be no peace between our two countries while the United States maintains a pro-Israel position.

Iran has maintained this position for over three decades and has not wavered in wanting the destruction of Israel. The only peace Iran will accept they have told us repeatedly is one that results in the death to Israel. Trying to reason with Iran's leadership, trying to deal with them as other than the hate-filled, terrorist-supporters they are, is a mistake that could have grave consequences for us and our allies.

Obama's only goal this first hundred days seems to be to do precisely the opposite of what George Bush did.

That is not policy or ideology; it's petulance.

Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe

During the Bush administration, every act of bumbling, tumbling, and stumbling was reenacted ad nauseam on the various talk shows. David Letterman and Keith Olbermann in particular seemed to take perverse pleasure at any opportunity -- and, I admit, there were many -- to make fun of our former president.

One wonders if President Obama's late night gaffe -- where he said on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno that his inability to bowl "was like the Special Olympics" -- will be played on an endless loop on any of the talk shows tonight.

How many times were we shown the video of George Bush trying to go in a locked door on his way to a dinner in China? How hard did they laugh at and relish in his awkwardness and embarrassment? Mocking Bush was a sport and everyone tried to out-score the other.

Now that it's Obama starting up the presidential gaffe-o-meter, will we be subjected to endless showings of his less-than-noble moments?

I doubt it.

Obama's Manipulation

President Obama is one of the most skillful politicians we've seen in a long time. His "Blame me," speech earlier this week is a prime example. Obama managed to portray himself as George Washington, Harry Truman and Mahatma Gandhi all rolled into one when addressing the AIG bonus fiasco.

Obama told a town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California, "Washington is all in a tizzy and everybody is pointing fingers at each other and saying it's their fault, the Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault. Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the President."

He went on to add: "We didn't draft these contracts. We've got a lot on our plate. But it is appropriate when you're in charge to make sure stuff doesn't happen like this. So for everybody in Washington who's busy scrambling to try to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it's my job to fix these messes even if I don't make them."

That was brilliant. By nobly falling on his sword, he gave the impression that he had nothing to do with the problem but was so saintly, so selfless that he would accept the responsibility of others as his own. Obama the martyr.

Instead, this was a display of Obama the devious, deceptive manipulator of public opinion. Because as we all now know, it was his administration that pressured Senator Chris Dodd into adding the very language in the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to be paid.

So by seeming to take responsibility then immediately following it up with a deft denial -- "we didn't draft these contracts" -- he was shielding himself and his administration from any further attention to their part in the AIG mess. Don't look behind the curtain, don't investigate any further, don't ask any more questions. I've said it's my fault, even though I went on to say it wasn't really my fault, so let's move on.

It really is quite a feat. And it scares me that our president is so comfortable with his popularity, especially with the mainstream media, that he can do this masterful bit of manipulation and come out unscathed.

Obama's administration knew about the AIG bonuses, pushed for language in the Dodd Amendment to ensure the bonuses would be paid, then claimed outrage when the public got wind of them. He then deflected further scrutiny by pretending to take responsibility for something he pretended was someone else's fault.

Obama may be a terrible president, but he's a great politician.

Geithner On His Way Out?

Timothy Geithner should be out at Treasury by the end of next week. How do I know? Look at the following statements made today by President Obama about his Treasury Secretary:

"I have complete confidence in Tim Geithner and my entire economic team."

"Nobody's working harder than this guy. You know, he is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand."

Those are precisely the kind of statements made just before the, "for personal reasons, the secretary has decided to step down from his position...."

Geithner has already given us one of our first, "what did he know and when did he know it?" moments. According to AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy, Geithner knew about the bonus payouts two weeks ago, but a Treasury spokesman has disputed this, claiming Geithner only discovered the bonuses on March 10.

Absolutely no one has been wowed by his performance so far -- he has appeared torpid, unfocused and disorganized, not exactly what is needed in a time of economic uncertainty. He has been unable to confidently articulate a plan for the economy. And now this mess, with the government admitting at best that it had no idea where some of the bailout money was going. At worse, they knew and did nothing.

Which takes us to Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, who one day after denying that he played any role in the loopholes that allowed AIG to payout these huge bonuses, today admitted that he lied. According to a report from CNN, Dodd acknowledged that he in fact was responsible adding language to the federal stimulus bill which ensured that the pre-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.

It is hard to imagine this senior Democrat, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, was acting without the knowledge and consent of the administration. And, indeed, it turns out he wasn't.

Dodd told CNN that the Obama administration pushed for the additional language because it was worried that without allowing for these bonus payments, the bill might be threatened. Dodd would not name who in the Treasury Department urged him to add the bonus payments loophole, but said it was a number of different staffers.

This is not something Geithner can explain his way out of. He really has no other choice but to just step down. And maybe Dodd should join him on the way out.

Class Warfare is Back

The most telling thing to come out of President Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress was the undercurrent of class warfare. The new great divide in America is not between the rich and the poor. Instead, there is a battle in this country between those who hate the rich and those who don't.

The class warfare is not based, as in the past, on jealousy or envy. It is now predicated on raw disgust. The rich are evil. Implicit in this is they are undeserving of their wealth and immoral for keeping it.

This has been a major theme of Obama's campaign since his statement on the campaign trail equating making money with "selfishness." During the campaign, when the Republican ticket raised the specter that Obama's economic policies smacked of socialism, Obama responded, "John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

There was no question that Obama was referring to the Ayn Rand book, "The Virtue of Selfishness," which discussed the benefits of rational self interest -- the notion that the economy, the nation, would be better off if everyone worked hard in their own best interest. By contrast, according to Rand, those who opposed selfishness were espousing socialism or worse and would doom the country by creating a generation of takers instead of producers.

Obama's intention to pit the poor against the rich was done by framing the discussion as one of good versus evil. He used sarcasm and hyperbole in last night's speech -- saying "this time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks, or buy fancy drapes, or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over." It was subtle, but the phrase "buy fancy drapes" was to make him -- and by analogy all of us -- regular folks. Despite the fact that he made over $4 million in 2007, Obama is just one of us.

On the other side is "them" -- the rich. And under Obama, "they" will not be allowed to keep their exalted position. He identified the problem right at the outset of his speech: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future." In other words, government should not have allowed the rich to become richer, the money that went to the wealthy should instead have been taken by the government and redistributed. That should scare any freedom-loving American.

Our President is at war with Wall Street -- and that is not a war that America can win. He derided the institution last night when he pitted them as unreasonable and at odds with the regular folk, saying, "I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions."

Not only did he ostracize and vilify Wall Street, but he displayed a glaring lack of understanding of how Wall Street operates and what it values. At a time of economic trouble, we have a president who not only doesn't grasp the stock market but is taking it on as if it were the enemy.

He made his antipathy towards Wall Street crystal clear. "I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive," he promised. That's not the way to bring Wall Street into a partnership for the good of the country. Not surprisingly, Wall Street responded to the outright attacks by opening down today.

Of course, the most direct attack on the "rich" came near the end of the speech. Obama repeated what he'd promised throughout the campaign, tax increases for the top earners, saying, "In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."

So the regular folk need not worry about the tax increases, because it will only hit them -- the rich. Ignoring the fact that depending on where you live, how many children you have, whether you're a small business owner, or a host of other factors, you're not "rich" on $250,000 a year -- it's a number that looks big and comrpises a small enough segment that the voting majority is excluded. So this tax increase only affects them, not us. They have it coming, those rich people. How dare they make that much money! Why should they be allowed to keep it and spend it as they wish? Who do they think they are?

It wasn't so long ago when everyone aspired to be rich and it was the American dream to work hard and achieve that goal. But now the goal is not to become rich, but to make those rich pay.

We have been warned. Obama spelled it out: "That day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here."

Things I like about Obama

Never let it be said that we here are not open-minded and even-handed. Yes, we believe that the new President is taking the country down a dangerous road towards some form of socialism that will ultimately spell the end of civilization as we know it. But, we are also willing to credit him when he does something right. So, kudos to him for voicing his opposition to the "fairness doctrine."

This misleadingly labeled concept would have required broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. What it means is that broadcasters would not be able to use their time in the most financially beneficial way -- that is, put on the air the shows the people want to hear or see. Instead, they would have to carve out a significant amount of time presenting viewpoints that no one may want to listen to in the interest of "fairness."

In effect, if put into place, the fairness doctrine would have decreased the amount of conservative voices on the airwaves, primarily in radio, and forced broadcasters to air liberal shows, even at the expense of ratings. For this reason, it is opposed by conservatives and supported by liberals.

According to FOXnews.com, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt reiterated the president's opposition to the doctrine, stating, "As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated."

So, while Obama leads us to hell in a hand basket of wasteful spending, wealth redistribution, and staggeringly increased governmental involvement in our lives, at least he's right on this one issue.

For the record, the title of this post says things, plural, because I was hoping by now that he would have acted on his campaign promise to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research. But I suppose pandering to the Arab world, ordering the closure of Gitmo, and trying to destroy capitalism were higher priorities for the new President.

That's All Folks

In an homage to the old saying "don't just sit there, do something," today the Senate passed their own version of the hopelessly mislabeled stimulus package. The homily they should have considered instead is "first, do no harm." In their haste -- and that of the President -- to do something, anything, and quickly, they have put together a plan which is unlikely to stimulate anything but partisan debate during the 2010 congressional election.

What is apparent is even those most vehement supporters of the bill realize it is flawed. Really, the only argument is how deep and wide that flaw runs.

President Obama justified the package in a speech at George Mason University last Thursday, "There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all."

Senator Charles Schumer dismissed the excessive earmarks and unnecessary spending in a widely circulated interview, where he was quoted as saying "and let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments. The American people really don't care." He went on to say that the American people care about tax credits more than "some small provision in the bill that souldn't be there."

Well, with his express admission that there is pork in the bill that shouldn't be there shouldn't the answer be, say, to remove it? But Schumer, along with the rest of the Democrats are following their leader's mantra -- we won. So they will push through the most spending they can get away with, even as public opinion polls indicate that the pubilc is not in favor of massive spending and the more details they learn about the package, the less they support it.

President Obama frankly doesn't seem to care if this is the right move or not. He has painted a dire picture of an America on the brink and this legislation as the only salvation. And if he's wrong and the country does not recover or, worse, plunges deeper into economic despair? “I expect to be judged by results,” said the president at a town hall meeting in Ft. Meyers, Florida, on Tuesday. “I'm not going to make any excuses. If stuff hasn't worked and people don't feel like I've led the country in the right direction, then you'll have a new president.”

Forgive me for being glib, but, easy for him to say. The worse that will happen to Obama is he'll go on the media circuit and help Jimmy Carter build houses (bashing Israel optional). But if this untested, rash approach to fixing the economy fails, the price the country will pay will be much greater.

We are not suffering from a lack of government spending and the answer to our current problem is not just more spending. But the Democrats just can't help themselves -- they spend, it's what they do. Having given the Democrats the keys to the car, as it were, with their overwhelming victory in November, the American people better hope they don't crash.

Obama's Partisan Politics

Last night in a speech to House Democrats, President Obama made light of the Republican's objections to parts of the stimulus package. In a fairly mocking tone, Obama said of the Republicans, "So then you get the argument, 'well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.' What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point." His receptive audience laughed along with him.

If Obama wanted to bring change to Washington, launching a partisan attack less than a month into his presidency isn't the way. The Republicans are not the enemy. As the minority party, they have a role as old as our country -- to provide a check on the unfettered power of the majority. The 58 million plus voters who voted for the Republican candidate should not be shut out of the discussion over the country's future. The 22 states whose voters preferred the Republican candidate -- the no longer have a voice?

This may have been a "decisive" Democrat victory, but it does not result in a dictatorship. Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il and Fidel Castro don't have to listen to the opposition, but Obama does. The "we won" attitude is hubristic and short sighted. Four or eight years from now when the Republican revolution comes back around, as these cycles tend to do, will the Republicans similarly be allowed to simply shove their agenda down the Democrats' throats without discussion?

We are in a dire economic situation, but that does not mean we have to act hastily or rashly. If it takes another day, week or even a month to come up with a viable solution that does not put us even further in the hole, then we should take that time. Obama is letting his ego get in the way of good judgment. This isn't about his winning his first Congressional battle -- it should be about what's best for the US economy and the US taxpayer.

There is no disputing that the stimulus package has pork in it -- an amount conservatively estimated to be $100 billion, more than one-tenth of the entire package. That is not an insignificant amount and Obama seems to conflate spending with stimulus. Simply put, not all spending will stimulate the economy. And at a time of such great economic crisis, now is not the time to load up a bill with unnecessary spending. This should be a streamlined bill aimed precisely at the ways to get the economy moving. It shouldn't be the Democrats' opportunity to push spending programs they've had their hearts set on for the past eight years.

Do you feel safer yet?

So Leon Panetta is facing questioning from the Senate on his nomination to be the next head of the CIA. According to reports from the AP, he said "he would come to the job with a list a questions he wants the agency to answer.
Where is Osama bin Laden?
When will al-Qaida next try to attack the United States, and where?
When will Iran have a nuclear weapon? How can it be deterred from getting one?
What will it take to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapon?"

Those don't exactly seem like shockingly unexpected questions -- nor, in fact, questions that probably haven't been asked during the past administration. It doesn't show any great insight to pose the most obvious questions about our national security. What concern me is that Panetta would be going into this job with no more knowledge of how to get those answers than anyone else.

Panetta has not worked in or around the area of national security before and would be in effect learning on the job (not unlike our even less-experienced President). He is neither an intelligence nor national security expert. He brings no significant, relevant experience in any of the issues that would be facing him in his new position.

What Panetta is is what the naive masses had expected not to see in an Obama administration and what it is teeming with -- another Washington insider who is expected to call in political chits to get Obama's policies pushed through.

As my alter ego said today, "The inexperience in Washington is matched only by the moronic masses who did not realize that change meant throwing out the baby with the bathwater."

Obama's Mea Culpa

From Yahoo News:

"President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up."

The president did a series of back-to-back television interviews in which the subject of failed nominees was a top subject.

Obama told NBC "I'm frustrated with myself" for unintentionally sending a message that there are "two sets of rules" for paying taxes, "one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks."

"I take responsibility for this mistake," he told Fox News."

Now if he can explain why a woman with less than $1,000 in unpaid taxes had her White House appointment "withdrawn" almost instantly, but Geithner was approved and Daschle had the administration's full support. Perhaps there may still be two sets of rules -- one for men and one for women?

Tax Trouble Double Standard

Well, I was all prepared to write about the Democrat Tax Dodge Tango, how the rules that apply to the rest of us conveniently don't apply to them. Then I receive a New York Times Breaking News Alert -- Daschle withdraws. Now, if he were facing a criminal trial as well, that would be even better.

You had know that things weren't looking good for Daschle when even the NY Times called for his withdrawal. Yet, the President continued to stand by him, giving Daschle the ol' thumbs up just yesterday when questioned by the media. The President should have demanded the withdrawal as soon as the tax evasion was revealed, but had perhaps backed himself into a murky ethical corner with his support of another tax dodger -- Timothy Geithner.

It should go without saying that any Republican with the same baggage would have been pilloried and run out of town. But Democrats just have to duck their heads, say I'm sorry, and all is forgiven. How refreshing to see that this time, the "aw shucks, my bad" defense didn't work and one of them was held accountable. Bye bye Tom.

For those keeping score, that is one proposed Commerce Secretary, one Secretary of Health and Human Services, and one Chief Performance Officer who have had to withdraw their nominations for various ethical issues and one Treasury Secretary given a pass for his tax troubles.

In addition, there have been at least seventeen waivers to the no lobbyist in the White House rules in the first two weeks of the Obama administration, the latest being proposed Deputy Defense Secretary -- and former Raytheon lobbyist -- William Lynn. Correction, the latest being former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as Treasury Secretary Geithner's chief of staff.

Better post this before I have another former lobbyist/now White House insider to name.

This is the change we were promised?

Obama -- Apologist in Chief

This is from Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya:

"And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well."

Am I naive to think that it is the job of the President of the United States to promote JUST the interests of the country?

Or is he naive to think that he can be loved by the Mustlim world if he says that America has made mistakes and is always "dictating" what it wants in the Middle East? Should his first interview on an Arab station have been so full of contrition? Is insulting the US the only way to achieve his goals in the Middle East? If so, just what are those goals?