Happy Birthday Mr. President!

Barack Obama in the eyes of the press.

Leadership?

Government at its "Platonic Ideal"

Great minds think alike.  I mentioned a couple days ago the sequester standoff will hurt President Obama and Democrats in the long term, because if the world is still here the morning after the sequester kicks in, their message that every dollar spent by the government is crucial and indispensable becomes hollow.  And that would be a catastrophe for the Democratic Party.  Yesterday on CNN, the venerable Charles Krauthammer said the same thing, only it sounded much better.

You Stay Classy, Mr. President

With President Obama safely reelected, the news media, unburdened from having to provide cover for the White House, is now free to actually cover the White House. Among the first to take that bold step is the New York Times.  They reported this past Friday that President Obama has transformed his reelection campaign into an advocacy network with the goal of raising $50 million, which would make it one of Washington D.C.'s largest lobbying operations.  But,

Unlike a presidential campaign, Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt “social welfare group.” That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.

According to the Times, the new campaign, called Organizing for Action, will sell access to the White House for those who can pay.  Next month OFA is holding a "founders summit" where donors paying $50,000 each will get to mingle with top Obama aides.  But those with deeper pockets get access to the President himself. The Times reports,

Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

 And from shady, it starts to get sticky:

Many traditional advocacy organizations, including the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association, are set up as social welfare groups, or 501(c)(4)’s in tax parlance. But unlike those groups, Organizing for Action appears to be an extension of the administration, stocked with alumni of Mr. Obama’s White House and campaign teams and devoted solely to the president’s second-term agenda. 

 Change we can believe in?

The Politics of Crisis

One of the most frustrating stunts in politics that is practiced by all sides, on the local, state and national level, is the gun to your head, "if you don't pass this, **insert necessary government service** will be cut/suspended/eliminated."  There's a word for that -- extortion.  Everyone has seen it. Government officials threaten citizens to pass spending measures, raise taxes, pass levies or services will be gutted.  The problem is, the services they opt to put on the chopping block are always vital services like schools, police, and fire departments whose absence would cause the most pain and/or disruption.  They never cut bureaucracies, non-vital programs, or find ways to streamline operations by eliminating waste and inefficiency.

The current sequester "crisis" is the same.  Having conceived of, and signed into law the sequester, President Obama is now demanding that congress raise taxes (after just getting new tax hikes) or he will allow the sequester cuts to kick in, which according to his rhetoric, will invite Armageddon.  Air traffic controllers, first responders, TSA workers will be laid off.  Military readiness will damaged.  Women and children will be cut from aid programs.  And it's all the Republicans' fault.  So what are these horrific cuts that threaten to undo the fabric of reality?  Annual federal spending will increase from its current $3.6 trillion to $6 trillion over the next ten years.  The sequester will cut 2.4% of that increase (click here for emphasis).  In other words, federal government spending will continue to increase (considerably) every year.

If we cannot withstand a 2.4% cut in the rate of increase over ten years, we might as well tell the European Union to save us a spot, 'cause we're DONE;  we will never be able to limit or slow the growth of, much less cut, government.

In her Wall Street Journal column, Government by Freakout, Peggy Noonan points out the problems with this style of governance, even if it works politically.

What effect do all the successive fiscal cliffs, ceilings and sequesters, have on public confidence? On the public's spirit? They only add to the sense that Washington is dysfunctional and cannot possibly help us out of the mire. 

It shows the world we lurch from crisis to crisis by habit now. This makes us look incapable and beset. 

It further sours the sourest White House-Capitol Hill relationship of modern political history. That relationship probably can't get worse—it was actually breaking news this week that the president picked up a phone and called a Republican senator—but it's not good to see no possibility of repair. 

It leaves the vulnerable feeling more anxious, and the sophisticated feeling more jerked around. The president is usually called popular, but his poll numbers are well below Bill Clinton's and Ronald Reagan's at this point in their presidencies. He's pretty much stuck at George W. Bush's levels. The president and his people overestimate his position in this 50-50 country. 

Beyond that, the president damages himself with his cleverness. At the end of the day he looks incapable of creating a sense of stability. The thing he misses as he shrewdly surveys the field is what he is: the president. He is the man people expect to lead, to be wiser. He is the one they expect to come up with a plan that is a little more than Let's Threaten Catastrophe.

The President could at any point work with Republicans to diffuse this "crisis."  But he won't.  He wants this fight.  Congressional Republicans are unpopular.  He has the bully pulpit.  Higher taxes or bust.  But I'm not so sure it will work in his favor, at least in the long term.  If the sequester kicks in, and the world doesn't end, it corrodes the Democratic mantra that every single government program, every single government dollar spent, is absolutely essential.

I don't think the President wants people catching on.

Our Unserious President

This guy is entering Bill Clinton territory.  The political calculation and utter dishonesty of President Obama is galling.  What makes him worse than any other Washington politician?  Because he was elected on the promise that he wouldn't be that guy.  The House has passed two bills to replace the sequester.  Senate Democrats have introduced a plan.  Where's the President?  Apparently he believes the Presidential campaign is still going on as he travels across the country demonizing Republicans as bad guys who only care about the rich, and refuse to let him help the American people. The President apparently doesn't remember or care he is in a divided government and seems to think his sweeping 51% victory in November (in which he received 4 million fewer popular votes and 33 fewer electoral votes than in 2008) makes him a de facto monarch and that Republicans should submit to his every decree (nevermind they were also reelected by the American people).

The President's behavior is atrocious.  First of all, to blame Republicans for the sequester when it was his idea (here and here) is scurrilous.  Second, how does he expect to solve the problem when he dictates terms to, refuses to negotiate with, and slanders the very people he must work with in order to avoid the sequester?  Finally, the President's disgusting habit of using human props, in this case "first responders" who are funded almost entirely by state and local taxes, to manipulate public opinion and hammer Republicans for cuts that were his idea which he signed into law, really is despicable.  Senator Rand Paul among others has suggested dozens of easy, painless ways to cut spending and avoid the sequester, but the President isn't interested.  He insists the only solution is to raise taxes again because we've already cut so much. Really?  Four straight $trillion deficits and huge annual spending increases.  During his state of the union address, President Obama proposed some twenty new government programs but insisted they wouldn't "add a dime to the deficit."  It's just absurd, and it demonstrates why I believe he will go down in history as a failed President.  He had a chance to deal with the issue of our time (spending and debt) and chose more big government.

Hope and Change: A Retrospective, part 5 of 5

What to you get when you combine George Washington, Denzel Washington, Jesus, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and Neil Armstrong?  Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher know the answer.

By the way, I'm glad it took Barack Obama for them to consider being patriotic Americans, good citizens and neighbors; to care about the planet and their fellow man. None of that was possible under George W. Bush.

Hope and Change: A Retrospective, part 4 of 5

Remember yesterday's video with kids engaged in creepy Obama worship?  So, here's the adult version.  According to these celebrities, it's OK to be proud of America... because of Barack Obama.

What a relief.

Hope and Change: A Retrospective, part 3 of 5

This video (from 2008) is just downright disturbing.  Now, I make it a policy to NEVER compare American politicians to Hitler Stalin, Lenin, or Mao.  Far too many people do this and it's not only stupid and wrong, it's irresponsible.  But I think you can make a fair comparison between a video like this, and the propaganda films of Lenin, Hitler and Mao.  All of them feature children with reverent voices joined together praising their leader in messianic fashion (you can look them up for yourself on You Tube).

We're gonna spread happiness
We're gonna spread freedom
Obama's gonna change it
Obama's gonna lead 'em.
We're gonna change it
And rearrange it
We're gonna change the world.

Again, I am in no way comparing President Obama, his beliefs or policies with these genocidal dictators, only the creepy way in which admirers revere him as as savior. Can you imagine any such circumstance where school children are singing in praise of a Conservative leader, one who has yet to win or accomplish anything of note?

Hope and Change: A Retrospective, part 2 of 5

Four years after this comical, yet altogether reverential video, you have to wonder what happened to the seemingly boundless enthusiasm Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008.

Hope and Change: A Retrospective, part 1 of 5

No matter where you stand politically, you have to admit will. i. am is a gifted musician/artist.  This is an incredibly creative and effective video.  Having said that, I find it kind of sad.  President Obama was elected, in part, as the fulfillment of the civil rights movement (despite having no connection or history with it), and the one who would unite us across racial and political lines.  Given what a disappointment he has been to even his most fervent supporters, this video just comes across as empty.  And the celebrities look (even more) silly as they sing with such reverence for the Senator from Illinois back in early 2008.

30 Days of Paul Ryan: Day 27

President Obama responds to Paul Ryan's latest budget at the Associated Press Luncheon back in April (full speech here).  Just like he did in 2011, the President eschews bipartisanship and compromise in favor of smearing his opponents for political gain.  Paul Ryan's budget is widely considered a serious, albeit controversial attempt to deal with the our out of control spending and debt, but the President chooses to characterize the budget and those who drafted it in the most slanderous ways possible. Once again, President Obama demonstrates he is not, and never was serious about the biggest threat to our prosperity; just another cheap politician who wants to get reelected.

30 Days of Paul Ryan: Day 10

The Morning Joe crew over at MSNBC offer their thoughts on the President's April 2011 budget speech (as seen in the previous post).

30 Days of Paul Ryan: Day 9

In April of 2011, shortly after Paul Ryan released his budget plan, the President invited him to attend a speech he was giving at Georgetown University to address budget issues.  Given the President's expressed desire on previous occasions to work with Republicans on tackling the deficit and debt, Ryan expected the President to offer an olive branch to set the stage for a bipartisan effort.  Instead, with Ryan sitting in the front row, the President unleashed a dishonest partisan attack on Ryan's plan, calling it unserious and un-American.  He characterized Republican reform efforts as extreme, falsely claiming that it leaves the elderly and disabled on their own, while giving tax breaks to the rich (FactCheck.org completely undresses the speech here).

This speech was the turning point for me on President Obama.  I went from someone who simply disagreed with him, to someone who genuinely dislikes him.  This speech exposed the hyper-partisan and hyper-political nature that is the reality behind the facade of hope and change.  The President was never serious about working with Republicans as he had said.  If so, why would he invite the guy he has to sit across the negotiating table from, to attend his speech and proceed to insult him in front of the world?  More importantly, the speech, with its long-winded and strident defense of the welfare state, showed he was never serious about dealing with deficits and debt.  And with his re-election campaign kicking off, the President apparently believed that working with Republicans wouldn't help him politically as much as demonizing them.  With an opportunity to be the uniter for which he was elected, the President showed his true colors by acting in a way that was the antithesis of everything he promised.

The first video is the President's entire 40-minute speech (his critique of Ryan's plan begins at 16:30).  The second is Paul Ryan's response.

30 Days of Paul Ryan: Day 7

Back in 2010, when he was still willing to meet with Republicans, President Obama to his credit, attended a House Republican retreat in Baltimore.  There he discussed budget issues, including healthcare.  In these videos, the President and Rep. Paul Ryan have a series of civil interchanges on the topic of the budget and Medicare.  It was encouraging to see them engaging in what seemed like a really positive and substantive conversation.  Unfortunately, the President's willingness to engage in conversation ended when his re-election campaign began.

30 Days of Paul Ryan: Day 1

In light of Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate, I will posting videos of him for the next thirty days so people can get to know the new Republican vice presidential candidate.  The videos will consist of interviews, debates, discussions and committee meetings with Paul Ryan that illuminate his political views as well as his personality.  In this first video, Paul Ryan meets with President Obama during the 2010 Health Care Summit, where he respectfully but forcefully challenges the efficacy of the President's proposed budget.

"Son of Promise, Child of Hope"

Looking for a great Christmas present for your kids? I found these two gems last week in the children's book section at Target. Not bad for a president-elect who has yet to do anything. Look, I realize he's the first African-American president. I understand the historical significance. I get that people are excited and I'm glad for everyone that voted for him, but don't you think we need to get a grip? With the way people are fawning over the man, I half expect guests to bring incense and myrrh to his inauguration.

Help me Barack Obama, you're my only hope!

In the words of Al Gore - the debate is over. The debate, that is, as to whether the news media has a liberal bias. If the past thirty years hasn't convinced everyone, or the election season of 2006 wasn't enough to seal the deal, then the coverage of this year's presidential race has established as empircal fact the cogency of the news media's bias towards, and in some cases outright advocacy for, Barack Obama.

But it seems to me that 'bias' is no longer a sufficient descriptor. As the McCain campaign somehow continues to hold even in the polls, in spite of running against perhaps, the most charismatic and inspiring candidate of all time, their appears to be a growing desperation on the part of many commentators and members of the news media. Specifically, they seem to have, for the first time, allowed the possibility of defeat to enter their minds. And they are scared. Consequently they are already laying the groundwork for what will surely be (in the case of an Obama defeat) a massive backlash against the America they believe is ignorant, racist, and corrupt. A recent article published in Newsweek by Slate magazine editor Jacob Weisberg articulates this sentiment:

"Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race."

Are we racists if we don't vote for Obama? Will an Obama defeat mark then end of America? This kind of shrill posturing is the conseqeunce of several problematic trends and fallacious thinking.

The first is that Senator Obama (through no fault of his own) has been raised to such heights of sainthood by his followers that anything less than his ascendence to the American throne will be seen as nothing short of abandoning our only hope for a future.

Second, in order to compel the American people for the need for change, our political parties must paint our current state of affairs as bad as it has ever been. As Weisburg suggests, a vote for McCain will essentially send America into another dark age. I believe this kind of politicking is harmful to our country.

Third, we ignore the fact that African-Americans like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condaleezza Rice have served and are serving in the highest levels of government with distinction. To therefore suggest that how we vote in November will by itself either put an end to racism in America, or confirm that we are a savagely racist and hate-filled nation, is both irresponsible and stupid.

Is it really so outrageous to suggest that people who vote for McCain have principled reasons for doing so? I for one will not be voting for Barack Obama. Like many Americans, I can't help but like the guy. He's smart, charismatic and tough. I agree with some of his rhetoric, but like many Americans, I profoundly disagree with his policies and his vision for our country. Having said this, if he wins, it won't be the end of America because I don't believe my fate or future happiness depends on who happens to be living in the White House.

But as I watch the news media and others grow increasingly nervous about the current Sarah Palin phenomenon, checking their objectivity to avoid the horror that a McCain presidency would bring, I find myself almost hoping for an Obama victory. Who wants to see our country dragged through the mud should he lose? I cringe at the thought of the media trying to "make sense of it all." Don't you?