Manic in his moods, Obama was back on the hope bandwagon during last night's joint address to Congress. On style he deserves an A, but on substance a D.  Obama took a liberal agenda and wrapped it in a giant red, white and blue bow. Though it means Republicans have their work cut out for them, it also means that when it comes to his his laundry list of goals, the guy's got to deliver (including curing cancer). He didn't fool a lot of viewers, and he certainly didn't fool the markets today.

Best line: "We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”

Funniest: "Nobody messes with Joe." Right. Except Joe.

And now the Republican response...siiiigh.

Bobby Jindal is a charasmatic, new guard Republican. He is likeable and going places. There was hardly a trace of that hokey, scripted Bush-like banter in his career, until last night. But Obama is a tough act to follow and I admit it was hard to watch. Like hearing the Stones open for Air Supply.

Like Clinton's first major address at the convention where he booed off the stage, Jindal needs to take his lumps and realize that the party's advice is still not worth a dime. He should have been himself last night and not listen to the GOP establishment's recommendations (which they always give to the selected Republican response giver). It only caused him message constipation. And made him look like Lewis from Lamda Lamda Lamda. At one point I was waiting for Ogre to kick down the door.

President Obama is a much different orator. He's replaced the flowery can-do language with a daily diatribe of doomsday, and like any drug has given way to the harsh reality that coming down from his apex of hope isn't as fun as inhaling it. “Yes we can!” was replaced with “We can, only if we can make sacrifices NOW.”  

So which Obama will show up for tonight’s address? The Obama who propagates the notion that our best days are ahead of us or the one who invokes melancholy and stresses that things will further decline before they improve? After advice from the always helpful Bill Clinton and a market plunge, Obama likely knows he needs to stop accentuating the negative. But how else will he get his platforms passed if he doesn’t sound an alarm?

One thing Obama the Senator and President has been consistent with and isn’t likely to change during this evening’s address is using the fierce urgency of now for whatever it is he wants.  He has mastered the art of invoking gravity and extremity to manipulate popular opinion so he can either get elected or pass his policy initiatives. Whether he is lambasting the last eight years to purport change or stoking panic about our current economic calamity to move the masses, capitalizing on a crisis is one of his core competencies.

No matter which Obama gives the speech, one thing is certain: he must explain why things haven’t gotten better. He will make excuses for why we’ve yet to see the rainbow colored bunting, gold encrusted streets and sugar coated dreams he vowed. He can’t blame our ills on George Bush, but he’ll try. If anyone is planning a drinking game tonight don’t take a sip each time he says “the last eight years” unless you’re looking to get sauced.

Let’s get real: like the spendulus bill Obama signed into law last Tuesday (likely, and eerily, without reading) this week’s lip service has nothing to do with keeping an eye on growing deficits or staggering spending levels. It’s about taking money away from those who already pay the majority of taxes so that Obama and his pals can fund Democratic social programs. As I predicted weeks ago, now that the Democrats have secured payment for socialized healthcare and food stamps deceptively arguing it will stimulate the economy, it’s time to tell people who made money that they need to pay for it.

Be prepared to hear Dems argue Obama is taking a page out of the Bill Clinton playbook. But Clinton balanced the budget because the Republican congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, not because Bubba raised taxes. (A GOP congress passed the Act in 1997 and we had our first surplus in 1998). Not only did Clinton cause his party to pay for raising rates (the country went red) the economy was already in recovery when Clinton signed the plan into law. Our current circumstances couldn’t be more different.

We aren’t in a crisis because of tax rates, just like we aren’t facing economic turmoil because the National Mall could use some new sod. That’s why raising the taxes on those who already pay the most and businesses who create jobs is the worst prescription for what ails us. Our fragile economy is very sensitive to marginal tax rates. By hiking them, you’re almost guaranteed mania in the markets. They don’t react well at the mention money will be taken away from them. Who does??

Until we see what Treasury Secretary Geithner has planned to address the real root of our woes, we continue to sit and watch Obama rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. The President’s latest plan won’t just be taxing for businesses and anyone making money, it will likely take another toll on our markets. Last week Wall Street gave Democrats an “F.” Be prepared for another failing grade.

People have been speculating all week about how the economic spendulus bill will affect our financial markets. It certainly will, but the real tell-tale sign is what Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s plans are to dethaw our troubled credit markets, the crux of our crisis. We need action from his department to get banks to write off bad debts, creditors to pay off bad debts, and we need banks to start lending again while the aforementioned are happening. So far, no sensible solutions have emerged from Team Obama.

On Tuesday, Geither’s speech was supposed to bring some clarity, and we thought, a plan. But instead he told us nothing new. It was as if he showed up for the SATs without a No. 2 pencil. Not only was his anti-climactic announcement vague, he appeared more shaken and unsteady than the market in his presentation. News outlets and the Blogosphere made fun of his small stature. But frankly, I don’t give a hoot if Tiny Tim is vertically challenged. I care that he’s short on details.

His boss, President Obama, didn’t do him any favors. Monday night at his first prime time press conference, Obama billed Geither’s speech the following day as the main event on the economy and he dodged questions that related to our credit markets. He explained, in so many words, that his guy would put to the media’s concerns to rest at his press conference the next day. After facing a rough couple weeks over his tax troubles the last thing Turbo Tax Timmy needed was second strike. But he certainly got one. His lackluster performance demonstrated once more that you can fool the left, you can fool The New York Times but you can’t fool the markets. (They tanked after Tim’s address).

Aside from the spendulus being an ideologically and economically unstable solution, Obama and his administration are dropping the ball when it comes to leadership.

In fact, the more Obama talks down the economy and uses phrases like “catastrophe” the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more people hear their commander-in-chief predicting financial Armageddon, the more people will be afraid to spend. The tax credits in the stimulus for buying a new home or a car will prove fruitless if Obama scares the nation into thinking they can’t afford to buy a home or a car. Note to President Obama: you’re the leader of the free world, not some state senator from Illinois anymore. People actually give damn what you say, and what you say directly affects the confidence of our country. Until our president and his paperwork challenged Treasury Secretary give us anything but amorphous and vague platitudes when it comes to their plan for our credit markets–the center of our economic woes–our country will continue on a rapid, economic dissent. It’s time for Tim to tell us more.

First of all, as a Pennsylvania girl I’d like to apologize to every fiscal conservative in America for the actions of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, one of three Republicans who voted with the Democrats on the “spendulus” bill. Senator Specter is up for re-election in 2010 and I hope the voters in my home state will hold him accountable for his actions.

The actions of the 61 Senators who voted for this bailout plan to funnel money to Democratic constituencies, like unions and blue states, are shameful. But the battle of the bulge has just begun for the Senate and House, who now head into what is known as a conference committee to reconcile the differences between their two versions of the bill. If you thought the measure was bloated before, this stage could balloon the cost as each legislative body fights for its priorities. It should be a good fight. No Republicans supported the House version of the package two weeks ago. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer “is mindful that too much House meddling could torpedo the entire package.” Hear that Congressional Republicans? It there ever was a time to meddle, it’s now.

A part of what this bill — in its current form — does is funnel money to expand socialized medicine (Medicaid) and welfare programs. Once we pass this expansion it will be like pulling teeth to ever go back. And keep in mind that this is essentially a two year bill. To think that Democrats are actually going to cut funding for these costly programs is unthinkable, particularly in an election year. Yes, if these provisions go through we will be pumping billions into Democratic priorities. Talk about unstimulating.

Passage of a plan allocating almost a trillion dollars in money we don’t have will also give Democrats an excuse to raise taxes. Mark my words America. It’s coming. But tax hikes aren’t just the worst Rx economically, they are exactly what the public can’t afford and doesn’t want.

“We can’t embrace the losing formula that says only tax cuts will work for every problem we face,” President Obama said on Friday. But a recent poll by Investor’s Business Daily shows that Americans would welcome tax reductions with open arms as part of any stimulus plan. Of 568 adults surveyed last Monday through Thursday, 67 percent favored cutting federal taxes on businesses, 79 percent favored cuts in individual income taxes and — despite the fact that only half of Americans are investors — 62 percent even favored cuts in capitals gains taxes.

As the “spendulus” heads to conference it’s imperative we stand tall against Obama & Co.’s trickle up economics. We continue to hear the left talk urgently about the need to “do something.” But the cost of doing nothing isn’t as great as the cost of doing the wrong thing, and this bill is filled with wrong things. Act I of the economic recovery drama was a tragedy. It’s not too late to rectify Act II.

Ahhh, third fraud’s a charm. While Obama makes the media rounds admitting that he goofed when it came to Tom Daschle — his pick of Health and Human Services Secretary — his actions to date still speak louder than his apologetic words. Had Obama pushed all three of his picks out (brand-new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Daschle and Nancy Killefer) because “his administration claims to have set the highest ethical bar of any administration ever” he would have established credibility, displayed real post-partisanship and won favor with Americans. Instead he chose to be selectively ethical — with his typical lip service on accountability– with no action. If there ever was a time that Obama looked like an amateur, it’s right now.

When it came to Governor Bill Richardson, his second choice for Commerce Secretary, Obama said very little. Rather than chastise or accept responsibility at the time for his error in judgement, the Obama team tried spinning the press behind-the-scenes by engaging in a blame game with the New Mexico Governor.

With Timothy Geithner, the talking points were as follows: “it’s a hiccup” (personally it sounded to me more like another bodily function); it was a “common mistake.” Ah, yes, a common mistake that typically lands the less privilaged in prison and curiously, one that Geithner only revealed he had made after he was nominated. So, either he purposely avoided paying his taxes or he was incompetent. Either one sounds bad and reflects poorly on the Obama choice. If Turbo Tax Timmy can’t understand complicated paperwork, then why are we putting him in charge of what is arguably the U.S. Department of Paperwork?? Yet, Obama still stood by his man.

With Daschle it started no differently. We heard excuse after excuse from Obama and his staff that Daschle was qualified until a woman named Nancy Killifer, Obama’s pick for “Performance Czar,” did the right thing and proactively withdrew her nomination citing a long paid $946 nanny problem. Obama didn’t force Ms. Killifer out because his ethical standards are second to none, she bowed out and independently accepted blame.

This left no wiggle room for the ultimate limousine liberal, Tom Daschle. He could have never pressed on with his $100K plus chauffeur problem when Killifer responsibly fell on her sword. Her wise choice sunk his candidacy, not Obama’s purported ethical standards. Obama had the chance to lead and he failed by “absolutely” backing his buddy until the end. Had he asked Daschle to step down instead of excusing his “goof” he would have gained favor and appeared in control. Now he’s flailing.

“We can’t send a message to the American people that we have two sets of rules — one for prominent people and one for ordinary people.” Obama told FOX News, CNN and others last night — echoing the tone and tempo of his campaign. Groundbreaking. Then I must ask: why did you, Mr. President?

For months Obama has appeared like a duck: gliding along smoothly — but below the surface that duck is peddling furiously to stay afloat. From someone who promised extraordinary change, we’ve only seen common mistakes. Perhaps when your “highest-ever ethical bar” is causing you to repeatedly trip in the first weeks of your presidency you might want to consider raising it.