President Obama was swept into office by a tidal wave of support from a diverse coalition comprised of white Democrats, women, independents, Hispanics, Jews and African-Americans. Amid the din of "Yes, we can!" chants, it seemed that nothing could bring the history-making President down. But now, with his policies largely unpopular and his inability to goose economic growth increasingly apparent, Obama's once powerful political coalition is imploding.

On Election Day 2008, Obama won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976, according to Politico. Today, however, that group is abandoning him in droves. A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted this month reveals that only 40% of whites approve of the job the President is doing. Worse yet, these cracks have penetrated his own base: Among white Democrats, approval on the economy is down since April from 80% to 60%.

Dig deeper and the polling points to another ominous sign: Obama's approval with white college-educated females has dipped below 50% for the first time in his presidency. Tasked with making household budget decisions, women are skeptical of the President's health care plan and disappointed in our economic outlook. This explains Obama's effort to woo the women of "The View." It also explains his administration's backing of an equal-pay bill in Congress - the rallying cry of bra-burning feminists. But don't expect them to buy it. Talk is cheap.

Jewish voters have grown more skeptical as well. Obama's newfound warmth toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel after a very public scolding is being taken with a triple helping of kosher salt in the American Jewish community. This presents fund-raising difficulties with a demographic that contributed heavily to his 2008 campaign.

Women and Jews aren't the only reasons to worry. Hispanics also show signs of mutiny. Although a judge has ruled against aspects of Arizona's immigration law, the whole fiasco only highlights his failure to push for comprehensive immigration reform. Obama won 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, but today only 43% of Hispanics surveyed through an AP-Univision poll say that Obama is adequately addressing their needs.

But the largest and perhaps most telling dip in support is among independents - a key factor in his 2008 win. His approval with them is a mere 38%, with spending and deficits cited as the primary issue of concern. It's because of them that campaigns fight so hard for the middle, and without the backing of this bloc it's unlikely Obama will be awarded a second term.

So with the Obama coalition deeply fractured, is anyone still in his corner?

While liberals are still sticking with their guy, they remain unhappy about the war in Afghanistan, Obama's failure to close Guantanamo, a public option for health care and other progressive priorities. In fact. Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania even suggested on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Obama's current standing might trigger a primary challenge in 2012. That statement would have seemed like lunacy a year ago.

And despite the unemployment rate for African-Americans being almost double the national average, Obama maintains solid approval ratings with black constituents. But if the exit polls of recent midterm elections are any indication, they're unlikely to vote this fall without Obama on the ticket.

Unless Obama demonstrates he can lead on the economy and change course on his agenda, the President who quickly rose to fame for his powerful campaign coalition is poised to remain famous for losing it even quicker.

andrea@andreatantaros.com

Come hell or, in this case, deep water, the Obama administration is determined to find a way around a recent federal court ruling that overturned its six-month offshore drilling ban in the Gulf of Mexico. In an effort to appease environmental groups, President Obama's team has drafted a revised version of the moratorium that would continue to keep deepwater activities at a standstill, likely triggering another lawsuit and an expensive court battle.

This will turn an environmental disaster into an economic catastrophe.

In the ruling that knocked down the drilling ban, U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman wrote that companies working in the gulf's offshore oil and gas fields would, in effect, be punished for "an invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet."

But it's not just corporations that will suffer. The President's efforts to halt deepwater drilling are causing added economic pain for Gulf States reeling from the spill's fallout. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said, "Even the revised moratorium will force thousands of hardworking Louisianans and others along the Gulf Coast into the unemployment lines."

Read more here:

When it comes to me and golf, the two don't mix. I don't understand the fascination. I don't care to learn the "sport." And when it comes to United States Presidents and golf, the two especially don't mix. That's why it's perplexing to me that in a time of crisis, our commanders in chief continue to work on bettering their backswings, knowing criticism is bound to ensue.

When British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward was seen lounging on a yacht this past weekend, the White House wasted no time reprimanding him for taking some time off in the middle of a catastrophe happening under his watch. But  the President also took some time off - to hit the links.

In an effort to defend his boss, a White House spokesman argued that Obama's recent golf outing "probably does us all good as American citizens" because it gives him an opportunity to "clear his mind."

How, in the middle of a national disaster, is this President - or any President - not working a good thing?

If my apartment were on fire and I took time out to get a pedicure, it would seem absurd. Why would the President believe the visual of a triple bogey while the Gulf of Mexico is being destroyed is any better?

Obama isn't the first to come under fire for choosing putting over politics.

Read more here:

President Obama is a man who rarely loses his cool. He’s a smooth customer who is able to charm with his words and moves – except when the audience is Fox News’ Bret Baier.

During his exclusive interview with President Obama, which aired on Fox News earlier this week, Baier, one of the sharpest and fairest journalists in the business deftly exposed a side of the President that the public rarely sees.

This rare window showcased a dismissive, pestered and unprepared commander in chief. When asked about how Democrats were planning on passing the unpopular health care bill, Obama wore his annoyance with Baier on his sleeve, and was resistant to engage with specificity. Baier, unwilling to back down, cornered him on the manipulative legislative tactics being employed by his party.

“If they vote against, then they're going to be voting against health care reform and they're going to be voting in favor of the status quo,” Obama said. “So Washington gets very concerned about these procedural issues in Congress… ”

Rules, schmooles, says the President.

He seemed unconcerned with the shenanigans of Democratic leadership and process, refusing to respond to Baier’s questions about tricks like the Slaughter Strategy, except to say the process was “ugly” no matter which party was in power.

Mr. President, you are the commander in chief and you campaigned on changing the culture of Washington, not riding shotgun to it.

Baier was firm, respectful and persistent. He pressed him on process and policy; Obama was devoid on details for both. For someone who has been working on this effort for over a year, you’d think Obama would have a better handle on the policy but instead, the process has been so convoluted, so complicated, and so perverse it was apparent that even he can’t keep up with the talking points.

He also, unintentionally, revealed that he is unsure what’s even in the legislation.

“By the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what's in it, you'll know what's in it because it's going to be posted and everybody's going to be able to able to evaluate it on the merits,” Obama answered.

Shouldn’t we -- and shouldn’t the president -- know what’s in it before it passes?

In typical Obama fashion he tried to stonewall his interregator and run out the clock, but Baier – the only anchor to do so thus far -- rightly called him out on his trademark filibustering, in other words talking at length to prevent Baier from challenging him on his verbose responses. It was the most uncomfortable moment of the segment, and Baier should be proud. That took guts.

The interview was more than telling, it was symbolic. The contrast of Baier’s peak performace revealed an Obama at a career low. His questions revealed the uncertainty of our leader -- and thus the direction of our country, and reflected the mood of man whose presidency is on the line.

It's time for President Obama to clean house. His overly ambitious, but largely tone-deaf, team of advisers has ruined his policies and his party. New reports show Obama in real danger when it comes to the public's belief that he should be reelected. And Democrats still manage to trail Republicans in almost every generic poll. Candidates up for reelection on the left are running scared, and the public is out for blood after a year of being force-fed bad policy.

Since Obama won't realistically step down himself, he must make some big changes if he hopes to reverse course. With all this talk about saving and creating jobs, here are positions that aren't worth rescuing:

His terror team - for propagating the pre-9/11 law enforcement mentality.

Top counterterrorism aide John Brennan - for insisting there was "no smoking gun" after the Christmas Day incident despite the captured Kenyan's smoking underpants. Guys like Brennan think it's acceptable to lawyer up a radical in the hopes of cutting a deal. His statement that criticizing the White House only emboldens Al Qaeda was off base, and his belief that the 20% recidivism rate for terrorists released from Gitmo isn't "that bad" was from another galaxy. Unserious attitudes like his can get Americans killed.

Attorney General Eric Holder - for politicizing our national intelligence and compromising our safety. The chief law enforcement officer takes ownership of a string of bad decisions, from choosing to try alleged 9/11 plotters in a New York City federal court to Mirandizing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. In addition, he won't back off his move to prosecute former CIA officials, declassifying sensitive information from intelligence to identities and discouraging our men and women on the front lines from doing their job.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano - for insisting the system worked when an Islamic lunatic almost murdered 300 people with an explosive-laced diaper. Napolitano has yet to clarify whether she was, or was not, briefed on the attack in the days that followed (she's offered two conflicting accounts) and refused to cooperate with Congress in its investigation of the incident. Her position is too important to leave to an amateur.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner - the guy shouldn't have made it past the part where we found out he didn't understand how to pay his taxes. He's made banks deemed "too big to fail" even bigger, though they're not lending as handily as they should, and kept the dying patient that is our economy on life support, including smaller banks. His failure to disclose where TARP bailout money went is reason enough to show him the door.

Read more here

Campaign 2012 started officially last night but it sounded more like a throwback to 2008.

We heard the same lines (“a new era has begun” and a similar tone (Washington is bad) that we heard two years ago

One problem: Obama has been in Washington for a while now. You can’t credibly paint yourself as an outsider when you err, um, live at the city’s most famous and iconic address.

He started with a lecture on history, and ended by cementing his own: defiance, and delusion – personified.

Rather than tack to the middle, Obama remained firmly planted in leftist ground and chained to his unpopular agenda.

On the night when he was supposed to be celebrating a health care victory, President Obama was still trying to force feed a bill that is unsalvageable and driving his party off a cliff, while simultaneously dividing it.

Not only did he accept zero responsibility for his own shortcomings, he took James Carville’s advice and foolishly - and repeatedly -- blamed George Bush! That just made him look incompetent and unable to figure out things on his own.

Politically speaking, Obama needed to win back the independents and swing voters the Democrats are hemorrhaging. The speech didn't do that.

Read more here:

Soon, it will be the one-year anniversary of Barack Obama's inauguration. I remember that day, when a self-assured, idealistic icon who oozed bravado spoke of choosing "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

The world watched as President Obama made history.

Twelve months later, he's still making history, albeit for the wrong reasons. Americans are more divided and discontented than ever. As a nation, we're less hopeful and filled with fear. One year later, the man who waxed optimistic is gone. He has been replaced by an unsure, demure and heavily weathered commander in chief. Record-high approval ratings have plummeted.

Though he's only at the beginning of his second year in office, it appears as if he's at the end of his seventh.

Read more here:

The Fierce Urgency of Two Weeks Later

President Obama’s speech on Thursday outlining the failures that led the government to miss a would-be terrorist bomber on Christmas Day demonstrated very clearly that after almost two weeks of dealing with a national security crisis he still has the wrong priorities. And, he can’t be on time -- even for the big stuff. Leading many to scratch their heads and wonder why that is particularly since after hours of delays the president had no news of any real substance to deliver.

After a more than a two hour delay, with many Americans wondering whether or not the White House could get its act together, President Obama took to the airwaves stage to tell us what we already knew. Though the administration had warned that the report would be “shocking” -- many viewers were only stunned by its anti-climactic predictability.

The policy of the speech was dull, obtuse and focused on getting the fatty layers of our federal bureaucracy to function like a well-oiled machine. Something that will never happen.

The language of the speech itself was an exercise in checking squares in a policy box. Obama tried to appease everyone, something he often tries to do in his oratory, but this time it was different. He didn’t even try to disguise his be-all-things-to-all-people efforts.

Could our president be uncomfortable dealing with terrorism?

Read more here.

Another terror threat, another botched response from the Obama administration.

Last Friday's attempted attack to blow up an airplane en route to Detroit from Amsterdam has bolstered what we've known for a long time: that stopping the bad guys is so far outside the worldview of the president and his staff it's downright scary.

In the hours that followed the attack, Obama foolishly called the attempt an attack by an "isolated extremist."

That's like Tiger Woods calling Rachel Uchitel an isolated incident.

We now know that the suspect had been in Yemen just days before the attack and that a regional Al Qaeda group has claimed responsibility for it.

Obama appointee Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security chief, who earlier in the year referred to terrorist attacks as "man-caused disaster" and said that we weren't in a War on Terror, praised the system saying, "It worked."

No, it didn't.

She quickly and bizarrely tried to back-pedal the next day insisting that the events following the failed attack unfolded as they should have, but allowing the terrorist to board the plane with explosives clearly "signaled a failure of the system."

Someone should tell Napolitano that her method for measuring success is very strange.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra said it best: "Success is stopping these attacks, not responding to them."

However, rather than demand answers, Congressional Democrats are on defense while they lambaste Republicans for blocking an Obama's pick to head the Transportation Security Administration.

Forget playing politics about the head baggage screener who wouldn't have stopped the attack if he were in place. We've seen what has happened when the baggage of the Obama administration isn't adequately screened.

Most recently the foreign minister of Yemen said that there are likely 200 to 300 terrorists in Yemen plotting future attacks. Why aren't we water-boarding the Christmas Day bomber for information on who these men are? Guess we're more worried about getting him legal representation.

While our president attempts to appease those who have declared a radical jihad on U.S. and elsewhere, let the Christmas Day attack be a sign that the strategy of talking nicely isn't working.

I wonder if the President would still give himself a B+?

People are going to get killed if we don't change this pre-9/11 mentality. This isn't about politics, it's about reality -- a cold one that people want to destroy us. Let this be another wake up call to the President before the only man caused disaster we're talking about is his own naivete.

He's been in office less than a year, but it's been a particularly eventful time for President Obama. From beer summits to birth certificate questions, to a Nobel Peace prize and nuclear weapon shield disarmament, Obama experienced many ups and downs. Yet he still found time to kill a pesky White House fly. Here's a look back at his best and worst accomplishments of the year.

For more click here.

President Obama has finally drawn a line in the sand. Not on whether or not to prosecute former Bush administration officials, not on the public option, or whether or not to send more troops into Afghanistan. He’s finally taken a firm stand on…the 2016 Olympics?

President Obama traveled to Copenhagen, Denmark on Friday, on a different plane from his wife Michelle and talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, to try to secure Chicago’s bid for the games (can someone do a carbon emission calculation on that?). While he was in Denmark he did meet the Danish Royal Family and also his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Besides the fact that he has bigger fish to fry than assuming the duties typically reserved for a metropolitan mayor, this is the only time we’ve actually seen the president appear so absolute.Well, except for when he picked a dog.

While his trip is certainly within the province of presidential duty, it begs the question, why did he do it?

As the Brazilians celebrate, he looks foolish, not to mention weak to the world. If the president had been able to peddle his influence and bring the games to Illinois, he would have looked effective now, and not coincidentally, effective at the end of his second term (provided he wins one) when the games would take place.-- Talk about historic grandeur and a sure way to memorialize one’s legacy!

If the economy was healthy, and Obama had brought home a win for Chicago today, he would have looked presidential. Republicans still would have shouted the converse but they would have looked petty. 

Now, with unemployment bordering on double digits, an economy still in need of rescue, and the games headed for Rio, Obama looks a like a president all right -- one with his priorities out of wack and his purported influence on the world stage non existent. Guess what? Obama's missed his first basket at small ball.

When I was in grade school, if I did a certain number of push-ups, pull-ups and performed the shuttle run in under 10 minutes I received a certificate from the Oval Office. 
 
Apparently squat thrusts and jumping jacks aren’t good enough for Barack Obama. With a video address next week he’s instructing teachers nationwide to assign students a paper on how to "help the president."
 
Among the unprecedented activities the government initially suggested for prekindergarten to sixth-grade students (well, unprecedented except for North Korea and the former Soviet Union): that they "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
 
Another task recommended for students immediately after listening to the speech: to engage in a discussion about what "the president wants us to do." 
 
At least that’s what the first memo said.
 
What happened to Hamlet? Fractions, anyone?
 
The Administration had to quickly walk back those instructions for a more toned-down approach.  Now they’ve moved away from what turned out to be a politically prickly idea and are merely insisting “Obama just wanted to tell the kids to stay in school!”
 
Good thinking. The drop out rate among third graders is really spiraling of control.
 
Obama’s had a rough summer and it’s reflected in his polls.  This is, no doubt, an effort to help remediate his image, but also butt into the lives of our next generation. And he’s called in his base to help: Hollywood. Apparently when the going gets tough, the tough call…Ashton and Demi? A video has been cut entitled “I Pledge” and one school principal is taking heat for showing the footage at an assembly program. (To see the video visit FOXNews.com).
 
It features several celebrities designed to act as moral compasses for the kids. Names like Courtney Cox, Cameron Diaz  – figures that many kids idolize – are featured pledging what they can to help the President. For instance, end world hunger, not give people "the finger" and uh, smile more.  
 
Nothing says real sacrifice like a toothy grin.
 
The White House is crossing a very fine line with its video message to kids. It's one thing to talk about the President's duties; it's another to create a program that, by design, forces children to ponder his or her wonderfulness. Students should know who the President is and what his powers are – that’s called civics class – but they shouldn't be discussing what he wants them to do. It reeks of propaganda and a cult of personality taken to the extreme. It also sets a precedent. Will the commander-in-chief use this mechanism going forward to reach potential new voters to push his agenda?
 
Opening the door to the federal government getting involved in local schools equals politicization. It’s the parents’ job and the role of teachers to help set educational goals, not the Executive Branch of government. But Barack Obama, at his core, is a nanny state leftist, indoctrinated in the progressive radicalism that believes big government knows best.
 
From the stimulus to Cash for Clunkers to the bailouts, the Administration has screwed up enough in the last nine months; our kids won't be next.  But maybe that's why he's speaking to them. With the American electorate skeptical of his policies, he needs to address people who really were born yesterday. 
 
Follow me on Twitter @andreatantaros.

In August, 2007 Senator Barack Obama said in an interview that he had the capacity to unify the country and move it out of what he called "ideological gridlock."

"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said (referring to Hillary Clinton).

Fast forward to 2009. We've seen nothing like that rosy picture that was painted by the then presidential hopeful. In that, it's all been evidence to the contrary. Since taking office, it seems Obama has been more focused on advancing his leftist ideology than bi-partisan brokering. And what does that do? It further divides -- not unites -- the electorate. 

The president has spent his summer straddling the fence on a public option for his health care overhaul, he's vacillated over whether or not we're in a War on Terror, remains vague about where he stands on prosecuting the CIA and hasn't articulated a clear position on Afghanistan.

President Obama knows that by spelling out where he stands on each one of these topics, he'll light up the left -- something he seems to want desperately to avoid. But he can't do it much longer. This consistent inconsistency has rendered him incompetent when it comes to convincing the country to have confidence in him and he has polarized the nation by triggering unprecedented levels of anger by his actions. The fury is most present in the voting block Obama needs the most: independents.

The numbers aren't pretty. According to Rasmussen Reports, when it comes to health care among those not affiliated with either major party, 55 percent oppose the legislation. That includes 47 percent of independents who strongly oppose it.

Fifty-four percent of voters not affiliated with either party are opposed to the investigation of the CIA. And, most damaging for the White House are the president's overall approval ratings with independents: a lackluster 38 percent. 

Then, there's the number one issue that matters most to independents: the ballooning deficit. Obama has completely lost control of his fiscal message, further polarizing the nation. 

The deeper the divide grows, the harder it will be for him to accomplish anything on his agenda.

Threatened with the growing consensus that Obama just isn't capable of leading the Democratic Party in a direction that will allow them to remain in power, the president might be getting the message. According to a recent report by Politico:

"Obama is considering detailing his health-care demands in a major speech as soon as next week, when Congress returns from the August recess. And although House leaders have said their members will demand the inclusion of a public insurance option, Obama has no plans to insist on it himself, the officials said."

(Cue record-scratching sound).

After the political equivalent of "Who's on First," is Obama finally adopting the age-old presidential adage: you can screw your base and they won't budge? (Where else are they going to go?) Or is this more of a grey area, triangulating at its best, that will put him at odds with Pelosi and many congressional Democrats?

Like Clinton, his new strategy might entail curbing the kowtowing to the left with a move to the middle. The question is: will it be too late? Unlike Clinton, Obama doesn't have an economy on the rise, or the foil of a Republican-led Congress. -- His numbers are also lower than Clinton's were at this time in his tenure, making it more difficult to rebound.

If he doesn't boot his base soon and concentrate on winning back trust with key voting blocks like independents, he can expect a continued free fall in his approval ratings. And like Clinton, he'll soon get a Republican Congress. That's the thing about the restart button. If you don't hit it, the American people will do it for you.

If President Obama thought fighting Republicans was tough, he’s learning real fast that battling with his own party isn’t exactly a good time. As many of his former colleagues in the US Senate and the House voice outrage and opposition to his push for universal healthcare, the man once deemed “untouchable” currently finds himself in the political battle of his life.

And he’s losing. His own party is running ads to press Democratic senators from Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, Nebraska and Ohio. If Obama cannot get socialized medicine passed with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, his political capital will tank and he’ll look extremely flaccid. Congress won’t have any reason to listen to him going forward and he’ll risk being perceived as a lame duck. He'll be relegated to policy proposals like school uniforms and midnight basketball.

Say what you want about George Bush, the guy got things done in his first term and lead. From education reform to Medicare Part D to his tax cuts, Bush signed his agenda into law despite congressional gridlock. Agree or disagree, that’s not a weak Commander-in-Chief.

Obama is just the opposite.

The President has showcased an appalling lack of leadership. He has sent no bill to the Hill. He takes no specific positions on the five bills in the House and Senate. All he has done thus far is give flowery calls to action. Either he thinks he is still a Senator or he is Chauncey Gardner.

What the President lacks in leadership he makes up for in arrogance. For the President to think that he can bully Congress and the American people into rolling over in a mere matter of weeks as he seeks to completely overhaul 20 percent of our entire economy is most disgustingly presumptuous. It is this arrogance that is preventing him from recognizing the potential fallout with Americans as portrayed thru moderate Democrats. He is bowing to the far left, and this will cost him. If he passes universal healthcare he will alienate moderate America and eventually suffer because of what it will ensue. It he doesn't pass it, he'll appear a failure, specifically with his base.

The lack of debate is even more stomach turning. Congress should start with a conversation about who these 50 million uninsured are and how we can get them insured before completely remaking the system. The CBO estimates that even with this plan, 17 million people will remain uninsured. Half of those are illegal aliens. Why can’t Congress play small ball on things like tort reform? Let boondoggle legislation like TARP and the stimulus be a lesson to all on what happens when debate is absent.

The only thing the President has revealed is his ability to spend. And spend unwisely. I ask: what’s he shown us that any woman couldn’t with an American Express at Bloomindale’s? The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House Democratic plan will cost just over $1 trillion— that’s $1 billion in 2012 before skyrocketing to $202 billion in 2019.

After his win in November a good friend of mine predicted that Barack Obama will be the most ineffective President since Chester A. Arthur. We all laughed a hopeful, but skeptical laugh. If he can’t make this happen, he absolutely will be.

 Since taking office, President Obama has racked up more miles to his name than most astronauts. According to Fox News, "in his first six months in office, President Obama has traveled abroad the equivalent of twice around the world."

It's no surprise that the unseasoned and untested Frequent-Flier-In-Chief needs to get some ink in his passport, but the real question is, besides helping Obama brush up on his romance languages, what has he really accomplished overseas?  The answer: not much.
 
At each summit, foreign leaders have been more interested in getting Obama's autograph than his thoughts on missile defense.  When he's asked for cooperation from more troops in Afghanistan to help with Guantanamo detainees to climate change concessions, each time he's been rudely rebuffed.  His speech in Cairo, intended to chart a new beginning, fell flat thanks to his amorphous, vague platitudes and pandering.  The only thing that matters to Arab countries is how he handles the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Obama, unsurprisingly, said nothing new.
 
When it comes to dealing with the most rogue of leaders, he's been bullied.  Chavez purposely bum-rushed him with an insulting piece of propaganda for a photo-op.  Putin gave a cavalier speech on the Cold War, forcing Obama to once again make concessions when he should have defended, not only the West, but also an accurate portrait of history.  But when he sat across from our friend, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, he couldn't even give the man eye contact.
 
He's even embarrassed the US by dropping the ball when it comes to proper protocol.  He gifted Britain’s Prime Minister, arguably the longest and most valued ally of our nation, some DVD’s; he gave Her Majesty the Queen an iPod with a selection of his speeches.  Gee, you bloody shouldn't have.  Really.  You shouldn't have.  He might as well have given them an autographed sock he wore during inauguration.
 
Obama's mini study abroad adventures have cemented the notion that he's an international figure, but not an international leader.  Bush may have been tough, but he was respected, and so was the United States.  With all past Presidents, the ones who are limp and quick to concede our liabilities abroad weaken our standing and make us more vulnerable.

Too bad Britain didn't give Obama a history book.

President Obama is feeling the heat lately for his limp foreign policy postures, showcased now more than ever with the increasing violence and chaos following Iran’s presidential election. Surprisingly, the critique is stemming from both sides of the aisle and is beginning to crescendo. Since the announcement of Ahmadenejad’s victory, Obama’s response has been more than unimpressive, it’s been plain impotent. If Iran is the ringing red phone, Obama is putting the call straight to voicemail.

Apparently in this administration, forceful, timely responses have been reserved for houseflies instead of our most threatening enemies.

The president believes that we shouldn’t “meddle” when it comes to Iran (or anyone else for that matter). Obama doesn’t want to appear like he is directing the protests; but even so, the Iranian government has already accused America of “interventionist” statements. Remind me again why democracy promotion is such a bad thing?

President Obama: you aren’t the leader of some insignificant Caribbean territory. You are the leader of the free world.

The world expects you, like your predecessors, to lead. But the global community is quickly learning not to hold its breath. In mere months, Obama has transformed the United States of America from the world’s policeman to the world’s cheerleader. We’re now the Mr. Rogers of foreign relations. Even Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are urging Obama to toughen up.

How can someone so quick to meddle in private domestic enterprises — from insurance to banking to the auto industry — remain so hands off when it comes to our national security?

Iran needs some major meddling. The same goes for North Korea. In fact, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, North Korea is seen as a bigger threat than Iran, China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan — surpassing Iran by a more than two-to-one margin on voters’ worry list.

The scariest part about both is that the two countries are intrinsically linked. Though the administration insists it’s keeping an eye on Iran, Iran is watching North Korea and how we deal with them. We deal with them through the Chinese. Problem is, our leverage with China is limited considering that they hold the bulk of our ballooning debt. Plainly put: if the North Koreans decide to sell a nuclear weapon the likely customer will be from Tehran. That is why sitting on our hands and spending our nation into an economic choke-hold will result in unprecedented American vulnerability.

This is one “holy crap” moment that photo ops and late night talk show appearances can’t fix. It’s time for the Obama administration to swat down stubborn, rogue regimes and anyone who seeks to threaten our safety. That’s what I call real pest control.

Getting President Obama to stop spending is like getting Keith Richards off heroin in the 70's. It's virtually impossible.

His administration has unveiled details of a $3.4 trillion federal budget for the fiscal year beginning in October, a proposal that includes substantial increases for a number of domestic priorities as well as a plan to trim or eliminate 121 programs at a puny savings of $17 billion -- amounting to only about one-half of 1 percent of the whopping $3.5 trillion total budget.

When President Obama was candidate Obama he promised us extraordinary change, as well as balanced budgets, the elimination of the wasteful spending of the last 8 years, corporate loophole closures and a unicorn for every voter. He set out to spend trillions to accomplish a very aggressive agenda that would empower government, not citizens. The math didn't add up then and it's not adding up now. As Republican consultant and Fox Forum columnist Christopher Coffey wisely observed back in September:

"Barack Obama has made some big promises over the past year, but none is more astonishing than his pledge to cut taxes, balance budgets and increase government spending.

"To cut taxes, he will have to abandon either his plans to increase spending and/or balance the budget. To provide universal health care, he will need to break his promise to provide middle class tax cuts and/or balance the budget. To balance the budget, he will probably need to abandon his tax plan and/or his promise for universal health. While he is surely capable of fulfilling any of one of his fiscal pledges, Obama cannot do all three at the same time. This is probably why Obama has started breaking these promises before Election Day and will continue to break these promises should he find himself elected."

The writing has been on the wall and they speak for themselves: he's out of control. Obama has not doubled, not tripled, but quadrupled the deficit. Yes, that means four times what it was under big spending Bush. We haven't even seen the biggest hole yet: universal healthcare.

In a statement delivered at the White House after the budget details were released, President Obama defended the cuts from critics on both sides: "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don't matter and waste is not our problem," he said. "We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration -- or the next generation."

So the alternative is to saddle future generations with crushing, colossal debt? I've seen some crass political maneuvers over the years but this one takes the cake. The plans that Democrats have passed in the first 100 days will add more to our nation’s public debt than all previous presidents combined in 200-plus years.

My next question: got inflation?

As noise mounts in protest of our nation’s rapid leftward lurch, the effort to expose a vast right wing conspiracy has returned, and this one is on a path to taking away basic American rights. This time we’re more than a scheme; we’re a threat. So much, in fact, that the Department of Homeland Security is “warning law enforcement officials about a rise in 'rightwing extremist activity,' saying that with 'the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias,'" according to the Washington Times. Since when is it dangerous to disagree with your President?

Alert first responders: be on the lookout for citizens – gasp – practicing their right first amendment right!

If anything, the Obama Administration should be issuing an alert that notifies first responders that people will be gathering to voice their concerns for the country and to make sure nobody interferes.

Apparently, free speech has become deeply threatening to our Commander in Chief. In interviews, President Obama has a tendency to appear annoyed at hardball questions or anyone who disagrees or challenges his ideas. Though his office has distanced itself from the report, his Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis, citing no specific threats, defines "rightwing extremism in the United States”… “Including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

The timing of this report is transparent. Today, hundreds of thousands of outraged Americans will gather in protest at “tea parties” across the country. The Left has been trying to discount their largess for weeks but this development is evidence they are becoming more visibly concerned.

Most jawdroppingly it reads: the federal government "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States. The joint federal-state activities will have "a particular emphasis" on the causes of "rightwing extremist radicalization."

Why conduct covert surveillance ops on nefarious overseas terrorist cells when you can monitor the Orange County Republican Club? – And use taxpayer money to do it. I ask: where was the DHS when Code Pink was trying to handcuff former Administration officials or when leftist groups like ACORN were slashing tires, intimidating voters and vandalizing campaign headquarters (not to mention bullying banks to give bad loans to people who couldn’t afford them)?

Obama wants -- and needs -- an unreasonable enemy. The Clintons were experts at using their detractors to define them, and Obama has ripped a page of out their playbook. Who better to demonize into an irrational, national security threat than conservatives?

In fact, he’s spent the last few weeks apologizing and making excuses for conservatives overseas. From his comment about Americans being “arrogant” on foreign soil to his obsession with winning a global popularity contest by lambasting the last eight years (translation: the right) the President seems more interested with the threat here at home than any abroad. Now we find out he’s issuing warnings about Republicans.

The message that Obama is trying to silence is a good one: cut taxes, cut spending, and repeal the pork – but there is much more at stake than the money. Our culture is in great danger. Our freedoms are at risk. And our constitutional rights are being put in jeopardy. The Homeland Security memo is just the beginning.

The Obama Doctrine seeks to do just that: strip power from people, put government — and ultimately the tenants of radicalism — in control. This has a direct impact on our communities and our culture. And once the our culture has decayed, there is nothing left to fight for. When the government starts trying to discount and ultimately discredit a portion of its citizens for speaking their minds, a threat much bigger than spending or taxing is imminent.

On Tax Day, the argument needs to bigger than bucks. It should address cost, but the cost of losing everything.

Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator, columnist and the former Press Secretary to the House Republican Conference. Her commentary can be found at www.andreatantaros.com and www.foxnews.com/opinion.

Though "words matter" to President Obama, details don't.

Last night Obama delivered a live press conference that came after a week of bizarre behavior, ranging from inappropriate jokes on the Tonight Show, and delayed outrage over executive bonuses. America is eagerly waiting for President Obama to make his case, again tonight, there were no answers.

After tonight, one thing is clear: Obama has his bachelors, masters and doctorate in persistent ambiguity.. He dodged questions on how exactly he'll cut the deficit by increasing spending. He ducked the issue of whether his policies will result in massive inflation. And he danced around the fact that his budget will double the national debt in 5 years and triple it in ten years.

The only thing we do know, is that Obama will make it harder for some people to give to charity. It is one thing to oppose the rich, it is another to oppose charitable giving.

Answers weren't the only thing missing last night; so were tough questions from the press. No questions about the AIG bonuses; no questions about Congress’s latest efforts to raise taxes, Leno grilled him harder than the White House press corps.

Most disappointing was the failure of the press to seriously question Obama on Geither's latest plan to thaw credit markets. Will it work? Hard to tell in the absence of tough questions.

Most notable was his verbal word orgy when it came to investments, which we all know is liberal speak for spending. In fact, I use the term investment every time I try to justify a shoe purchase at Bloomingdale's. Note: the last person to overuse the term investment was Bernie Madoff.

His press conference left the public unconvinced. And that Mr. President is no laughing matter.

With his massive wealth transfer proposals, it was hard not to view President Obama as a decent man who was inviting fiscal ruin with the best of intentions. That was until the Washington Times reported that he had secured a $500,000 advance for a book project just days before taking office. The White House argues that the $500,000 payment is not a “book deal,” but a “license” that was negotiated over the course of months for an abridged youth version of a preexisting book. Only the “paperwork” was signed just before taking office.

Whatever the argument, it is incumbent on President Obama to return his book advance immediately. Here’s why.

First, Obama’s deal gives the impression of impropriety. A president, or president- elect, with the highest ethics, should shun large private pecuniary arrangements, so as not to cast doubt on the office, or the intentions of the office holder. In the case of President Obama, the deal makes him look like an old school Chicago politician looking to get rich off of public service.

Second, Obama is cashing in on a loophole. According to the Washington Times, there are no rules preventing such a deal, just as there were no rules against most of the actions leading to the present financial crisis. The trouble with this loophole is that Obama has been criticizing corporations for taking advantage of loopholes, even though he took advantage of a big one himself.

Third, Obama’s $500,000 deal sets a poor precedent. How do we distinguish between a book deal now; a book and movie deal four years from now; a book, movie and consulting deal eight years from now; and simply a consulting deal or other arrangement 12 years from now? Unless returned, Obama’s book advance (or license) could allow future presidents to profit more and more at the expense of the public good.

Fourth, the advance smacks of exploitation. Obama surrogates are stressing that the payment is a license to a children’s publisher for an abridged youth-oriented version of a preexisting book. Somehow this is supposed to make the arrangement innocuous; but this is what makes it so bad. The fact that they hide behind youth makes it all the more exploitive.

Last, it is pure hypocrisy. Obama is continually slamming those who make money, while quietly getting rich himself, and this undermines his credibility.

The White House defense of Obama’s publishing payment is truly unpersuasive. Whether one calls it a “license” or a “book deal,” the fact remains that President Obama negotiated a lucrative private arrangement while both a presidential candidate and president-elect. This arrangement casts doubt on the president’s ethics and judgment. It also begs the question of how he intends to spend his time in the White House. Will he be negotiating profitable license deals and approving abridged versions of his books? Or will he be governing our nation? Instead of negotiating this license, Obama’s time would have been better spent staffing the Treasury Department and figuring a way out of the credit mess.

There will be plenty of time for President Obama to augment his income after he leaves office. As it stands now, he should return the book advance to his publisher and apologize to the nation for using his office to enrich himself at a time of economic distress.

There’s a saying: “You can never be too rich, too thin, or go too far too fast.” Our current President seems to subscribe to the latter. Being the first African American to be elected to the White House doesn’t appear to be good enough for Barack Obama. He's got to be ultra infamous, and that means going far—fast.
 
While many Presidents have laid out what they have believed to be "bold" policy plans for the future, it's typically a broad theme or two that echoes their campaign promises and is accepted as somewhat attainable. But Obama is making it his mission to address every issue this country faces by sounding the alarm of urgency to get his way. From greenhouse gas to healthcare to government contracts, he's made them all priorities. But are his initiatives really about us, or about his own obsession with infamy?
 
Obama says "this country can't afford to wait on healthcare." More like, this country can't AFFORD universal healthcare.  However, if Obama were to completely socialize medicine he'd surely earn his place in the history books while simultaneously thumbing his nose at the Clintons.  If he can shove his cap and trade program through he'd be hailed an environmental savior, out greening even Al Gore. He's gone after executive pay, proposed a budget that seeks to grow government, cripple investment, and impose a host of punitive wealth transfer programs turning us into Europe. 
 
Many economists are editorializing that what he’s preaching isn’t even possible due to our country’s limited financial bandwidth.  But Obama doesn’t seem to care. He is charging ahead and planning to charge all of his proposals on the country’s already maxed out credit card. Most puzzlingly, he is devoid of a plan to address the most pressing problem facing the nation: a credit crisis.
 
Is Obama’s pathological narcissism and pursuit for unparalleled notoriety driving our nation into the ground?
 
Many politicians are egomaniacs from Nixon to Clinton. Samuel Vaknin, Ph.D., and a known expert on pathology and narcissism writes:
 
“David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler; They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late.”
 
The personalized emblems, the presumptuous presidential seals before he won office, the cultish iconography, the desire to silence any kind of dissent among his detractors, all of these things point to a man who seems to be obsessively driven by his own self interest.
 
With each policy push and passing day that Wall Street suffers, we are seeing that with Obama, reality and fantasy are intertwined. Let’s hope the country wakes up in time, before his quest for greatness sacrifices the nation's best interests.

President Obama’s first budget is nothing short of astounding:  Record debt, record deficits, and momentous taxes, all in an effort to usher in a new era of responsibility.

The Obama budget in fact heralds a new era of doublespeak.  It is a work of unprecedented deception that conceals Obama’s deep resentment towards sound budgeting, economic recovery and those values that distinguish America from the rest of the world.

Read the Obama budget and you will see that duplicity pervades its four corners:

Obama bemoans the housing crisis, but proposes a budget that the National Association Realtors (NAR) says will undermine “the basic foundation of homeownership…hamper the economic recovery, raise foreclosures and hurt banks’ abilities to lend.”

He cries about the declining middle class, but offers a solution dependent on social welfare programs and one that NAR also declares will reduce middle class home values.

He lashes out at the previous administration for increased spending, but recommends increasing spending further.

He complains about rising health care costs, but presents a plan that replaces higher health care bills with higher taxes.

He says there is “nothing wrong with making money,” unless you actually succeed in earning some; then he will redistribute it.

The deceit is most pronounced when President Obama discusses future budget deficits.
Obama labels Bush deficit spending a “manifestation of irresponsibility,” even though his budget depends on deficit spending greater than anything witnessed under Bush.

He repeatedly argues that he inherited deficits but neglects to mention that he served in the Senate and voted for record deficit spending, and to increase the national debt ceiling to $11 trillion. While President Obama can indeed point some fingers at history, he is only pointing fingers at himself.

More appalling are Obama’s supposed demands for deficit reduction. Obama's promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term will still leave a budget deficit larger than any deficit created during the Bush years.

This is not to say that spending was out of control under Bush. It was, however the solution is not Obama’s request for a fourfold increase in the deficit.

Truly, it is carefully concealed fury, not responsibility, that rages beneath Obama’s budget:  Fury towards individual responsibility; fury towards business enterprise; and fury foremost towards a world that rewards the diligent and punishes the foolhardy.

America seldom places faith in the furious, so Obama duplicitously dresses his resentments in a costume of hope and optimism.  In the end, we are left with bigger debts, pronounced deficits, and little to hope for except another government bailout.

It has become jaw-droppingly clear that Barack Obama seeks to radically shift the alignment of this country, fusing its people with its government in a dramatic leftward lunge the likes of which America never has seen.

Obama deceitfully billed himself a pragmatist on the campaign trail. He was marketed as a "moderate." Post-election, pundits predicted he'd govern from the center. They couldn't have been more mistaken. Barack Obama is an extremist progressive.

President Obama seeks to molest our fiscal values. He aggrandizes reliance on fruitless government programs.

On its face, this appears to confirm that Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal with heavy socialist marbling. But it's much more complex than that. Though Obama has proclaimed that "this has never been about me -- it's about you" on the stump, these very actions are all about him and his increasingly apparent obsession with exaltation and a delusional quest for historic grandeur.

The cult of personality created by the Leftist trifecta of academia, media and the entertainment industry has overtaken Obama's own self-image. And he believes the hype. Most politicians possess a swollen sense of self-worship. But Obama believes he is the superhero of fanatical Democrat extremism, the green lantern of progressive precept, the Will Smith of left-wing indoctrination.

Obama certainly will be successful in his mission for unparalleled historic recognition. But don't expect any Obama dollar bill in the future. For his notoriety will be a legendary imprint for all the wrong reasons.

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.

 

 

 

When Obama was a Senator, he was much more upbeat, ultra positive and almost too cheery and idealistic to be credible. We heard him on the campaign trail incessantly speak of gauzy hope and change while his supporters snorted his every amorphous and vague word in the quest for the euphoric Obama high.

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.

 

In the next few days President Obama is slated to announce a plan to cut the annual deficit at least in half by the end of his term by keeping two notorious campaign promises: Iraq troop withdrawals and higher taxes on the wealthy. Last week Obama said we need to pour money into the economy to stimulate it. This week “only-government-Obama” is attempting to take money out of the economy. Is anyone else scratching your head?

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.

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.

The first 100 days of a presidency is a critical time for any commander in chief and will be no different for Barack Obama.

With sky high approval ratings, despite a nation still at war and facing an economic slow down, Obama will be under tremendous pressure to make good on his many campaign promises and his repeated insistence that change is here. In the first 100 days, perception — not policy — is everything.  If he can master the art of optics, he can win points from the public. Here's how:

1. Lower expectations. Obama's honeymoon will last longer than 100 days, and it will take much longer to accomplish what he needs to do, particularly on the economy, so the new president must be sure to fuse 'hope' with a measured, realistic  approach. Americans are tired of quick fix solutions that don't work, but they do want to see progress. That will come in smaller doses than Obama may want to dispense, so he must prepare Americans.

2. Embrace Republicans. I didn't say embrace their policies, just them. Folks want partisanship gone, at least for now.  While some hammer Obama for his centrism, and while it is true that many centrists politicians make me gag because they have no principles and they will change their mind at the drop of a poll, I think the presidency is different.  After a partisan political campaign, it is not unimportant symbolism for the president-elect to demonstrate that he considers himself president of the entire nation.  This presidential symbolism designed to unite the nation (which every president has vowed to do) is quite different than a finger-in-the-wind, centrist congressman.  If Obama makes a play to fold Republicans into the discussion he will rise above the binary political games  and make a good first step toward helping heal the country after a bitter election battle. This would also fulfill one of his campaign promises to be everyone's president not just the left who helped elect him.
 
3. Play small ball. Obama should pick between 3 and 5 items that he is reasonably sure he can implement in his first 100 days and go after them. Even if it's part of a larger campaign, he and his team just need to make sure there's an end in sight. — Remember, if you name it, you own it.  For example, Obama should promise to meticulously manage congressional oversight when it comes to the final portion of TARP funds. If he can account for every dollar and credit markets begin to thaw, he can take credit. This kind of small, early victory builds momentum.
 
Despite the suggestions and speculation, only Obama can set the tone for his tenure. Though so much remains uncertain, one thing is clear: starting Wednesday morning the world will be watching.

President-elect Barack Obama is prepping to jam another massive stimulus plan down our throats. Lately the president-elect has been hitting the media circuit to sell this monstrosity and each time he launches into his pitch he proves that what he lacks in actual specifics he makes up for in vocabulary. But is this bloated bill just a ruse for another big, federally funded bailout for struggling states?

Who needs network reality TV when you can watch the Democrats disgrace themselves in a show I like to call Pay to Play. The latest episode features former New Mexico Governor and Obama pick for (ironically) Commerce Secretary, Bill Richardson, who stepped down from his nomination amid reports he is under investigation for another seemingly all too common political quid pro quo.

Between Illinois Governor Rod, to Rangel, to Rezko (I could go on) a theme is developing: Obama's got some ethically challenged friends and the Democrats don't bring reform, they bring scandal.

Never before has a party caused such controversy between Election Day and the start of a new congress than the Democrats have in the last eight weeks. It's unprecedented, and unsettling for the nation to watch yet again.

I'm not saying this is strictly a partisan problem but it's certainly distracting and tarnishing the President-elect, his brand, and gives the appearance that he's the steward of a culture that America has no tolerance for.

Obama is a product of the deeply corrupt Illinois political machine. Have we ever heard him emphatically point the finger at its moral failings? No. Was his gut reaction to chastise his pastor, spiritual mentor and "uncle" Reverend Wright for white hate, sexism and anti-American rants? Nope. Has he called for disgraced Congressman Charlie Rangel to step down from his powerful committee chairmanship? Not once. It took him days to denounce Blago and when he did he was "saddened." His response to Richardson? More melancholy. This is the future office of the Presidency, not a Hallmark after school special.

Does this make Obama a criminal? Not technically. But it's criminal, and cowardly, that he doesn't stand up to these offenders. By locking the door and pulling down his shades when trouble arises, Obama reveals his ambivalence to ethics and an obvious aversion to conflict.  When the going gets tough, the tough…get bummed out? Obama doesn't represent change at all. He represents emotional impotence.

Obama's victory wasn't a vote against the GOP. It wasn't a re-alignment of the country to the center left, either. It was a vote against the incumbents. Obama wasn't part of a political dynasty or related to a former political power player. He was billed as an outsider and the mainstream media ignored any questions about his past that might unveil any sort of shadiness.  He was packaged and sold as immune to impropriety. Now we know he's just unwilling to stop or stand up to it.

For all the pretty language Obama fed us during his campaign about changing, things have only gotten worse. We're still weeks out to his actual inauguration and the beginning of unilateral Democratic control of Congress. Now his team is blaming Richardson when they dropped the ball in the vetting process. If this is foreshadowing into how he'll govern we're in for a tenure worse than Bush.  In the meantime America continues to tune in to the show, Pay to Play, filled with Democratic debauchery, hoping desperately for the sake of the nation, it won't be renewed for another season.

Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff , is known for a lot of things — sending a dead fish to a pollster who ticked him off, using profanity with foreign leaders (Tony Blair), strong arming anyone who gets in his way — but staying quiet isn’t one of them.

That’s why so many politicos are puzzled that a man known for his brazen bullying and forthright opinions is staying uncharacteristically quiet during the Blagojevich scandal, especially when he’s been fingered as someone who had contact with the Illinois governor. For this former ballet dancer, there is no way he can pirouette or demi plíe his way out of this one.

Obama, too, has appeared impotent when discussing the matter. He still speaks about arguably the most shameful display of pay-to-play politics–in his home state, with regard to his own Senate seat, no less–with little emotion.

Rahm owes it to his new boss to come clean. And Obama owes it to the public to encourage Emanuel to do so, especially when transparency and accountability were hallmarks of his campaign for the White House.

Here’s what we do know: that Emanuel had discussions with the disgraced Illinois governor (at Obama’s urging) regarding the vacant Senate seat. We’ve also learned that Emanuel relayed to Blagojevich a list of candidates deemed “acceptable” to the president-elect. While this isn’t illegal, it certainly warrants some answers, and fast.

Yesterday, Obama stressed that his internal investigation showed: “I had no contact with the governor’s office and I had no contact with anybody in the governor’s office.” He said the review showed the Blagojevich scandal “had nothing to do with my office.” Today, he told a reporter not to “waste his question” asking about the matter again.

We know Obama is smooth and a talented wordsmith, but if the reports are true that Obama tapped Emanuel to talk to the governor about his thoughts on a successor, then it’s true, Obama didn’t have direct contact with the governor. But he certainly used his top aide to act on his behalf.  Of course, that’s still not a crime if there was no quid pro quo.

The Obama camp claims they are staying silent because Fitzgerald's office has asked them to. But there is no impediment or injunction that prosecutors can put on them if they do address the public. Rahm and Obama aren't talking because they are choosing not to.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey conducted last Thursday and Friday finds that 45% of voters say it is “likely” Obama or one of his top campaign aides was involved in the unfolding Blagojevich scandal in Illinois. Twenty-three percent say it is “very likely.” –Just 11% say it is “not at all likely.” Not good numbers for an incoming chief executive.

Obama’s internal investigation could pose serious risks for the president-elect even if he insists there is no there there. My Greek father has a saying: if you’re going to air your laundry, you had better make sure you air your socks and your underwear.

When Obama releases his review he had better make sure that if he says there is no evidence of impropriety that no evidence surfaces at a later date. There has been speculation that there were confidential informants in Blago’s office and that the wire-tapping was present for longer than the nearly two months we already know about. — If that’s the case, it increases the likelihood that there could be more allegations involving someone close to Obama or political players from his past.

Time is of the essence. But just yesterday Obama said the report would not be made public until next week at the request of U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is leading the Blagojevich investigation. That leaves several more news cycles of speculation. It can only exacerbate the situation for Obama.

For someone who is not only claiming innocence in this ordeal, but who was also hailed for running the best campaign in history — especially when it comes to rapid response –Obama has certainly made some grave PR errors and isn’t learning from his mistakes. He should empower Emanuel to tell us what he knew and explain his involvement. We’re waiting.

In perhaps his first major test before taking office President elect Barack Obama finds himself sucked into scandal. The Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, someone Obama has endorsed politically in the past, was caught on an FBI wire tap trying to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat in a staggering level of pay to play politics.
 
Let me make one thing clear: Obama has not been charged, nor is there any suspicion that he had any involvement. In fact, Governor Hot Rod was recorded grousing that Obama wouldn't be helpful to him. Even if the governor were to appoint a candidate favored by the Obama team, Blagojevich said, "They're not willing to give me anything except appreciation."
 
If that's true why was Obama's initial response so muted? On Tuesday, following the reports that Blago had been arrested, Obama said he was "saddened and sobered" by the news. Saddened? Lifetime movies make people sad. This should make him furious. For someone who ran on the platforms of transparency, accountability and above-board behavior Obama is certainly sounding like Jimmy Carter 2.0.
 
O: Where's the outrage?? And the straight story?
 
Axelrod told FOX News Chicago on Nov. 23: "I know he's talked to the governor, and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them." On Tuesday, Axelrod issued a statement saying: "I was mistaken. ... They did not then or at any time discuss the subject."

Then Obama added: "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening."  

Talk about mixed messages.

The final flub was yesterday when Obama called for the Governor's resignation through a spokesperson, a weak play from the future leader of the free world.

It is evident that Obama hasn't learned the lessons of the Reverend Wright ordeal: denounce and distance early. For his own career and perception of his Administration he needed to take a zero tolerance policy on corruption and impropriety, particularly so close to home, by coming out swinging (though it's worth noting that Obama has long been silent on fraud in Illinois, perhaps trying to skirt the subject of his role with Tony Rezko). He should have been tough and clear that if anyone in his circle was implicated they would lose their jobs and that he would aid in the investigation whatever way he can. Sitting silent appears sketchy.

Here's some free PR advice: if you've got nothing to hide, don't hide. The media may have been in bed with the President elect but they're bored and desperate to increase sales with something sexy. Until Obama explains a cloud will hang over his head leaving the public to ask what he knew when and where else this drama will spray. 

After gobs of money, a barrage of advertising and an appearance by rapper Ludacris, we finally have an outcome in the Georgia circus (aka: special election) and it's good news for Republicans. Incumbent Saxby Chambliss defeated his opponent, Jim Martin by a large margin (58 percent to 42 percent). Sure massive amounts of cash the Republicans channeled south of the mason dixon helped, and the idea of a filibuster proof Senate was likely unsettling to Georgians, but the real story is that the Democratic Party is nothing without Obama.
 
He's the star, he controls the lists, the money and the power. But when it comes to the Democratic brand, the party is in no better shape than the GOP. There is no Obama effect when he's not on the ballot. Turnout pales in comparison. And he doesn't seem to care. Obama didn't stump for Martin in the Peach State just like Obama didn't stump for his colleagues in the Presidential election. We heard rumblings throughout the year that there were tensions between the Obama campaign and Capitol Hill Democrats and Obama's army-of-one mentality was likely the crux of that tension.  No man is an island but apparently Obama believes that he is. Maybe he doesn't need anyone else, but what will that do for the future of the Democratic Party?
 
It reminds me of Governor George Pataki's career in New York. The NY GOP was all about him because that's how he and his handlers wanted it. Anyone who tried to step up and shine was crushed. I'm not saying Obama will destroy anyone who tries to steal his thunder (because his new Secretary of State is certainly going to try and likely suceed) but my point is that the party was Pataki, and nothing more. When he left office, the party was vapid.
 
Martin lost for a few reasons but the most apparent was that African Americans didn't show up at the polls for Martin as they did for Obama in November. Martin needed Obama's help to get them there but the President elect was too busy for a quick jaunt to the South. It would have been worth his time. A Martin win would have only benefitted him. If Democrats achieved a filibuster proof Senate he would have had a much easier time governing. This was a tactical mitake by Obama and he hasn't even stepped into office. Their loss, our gain.

What are President elect Obama’s fiscal intentions? Does he still stand behind the policies expressed in his lofty pre-Election Day rhetoric, or does he support something else? We need to know the answer to this, because the more we hear the President elect express his policy goals, the more he contradicts the promises he made as the Democratic nominee.

In the days leading up to the election, Barack Obama was the candidate who wanted to balance the budget, cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, and provide universal health care. He made these promises notwithstanding the financial crisis, and subsequent bailout.

Obama has not even taken his oath of office, and he is already distancing himself from his campaign promises. Several news sources report that Obama will now focus on providing a huge stimulus package that could cost as much as $700 billion over two years. There are vague promises of spending cuts accompanying this proposed stimulus, and the details of his campaign tax plan are now in flux. Earlier promises of a balanced budget seem destined for the back burner.

What has changed since Election Day? We are in the midst of a financial and economic crisis, just as we were in the weeks leading up to the election. The real difference is that Obama must govern, and his pledges were designed to secure an election and not to secure economic recovery. His promises to balance the budget, cut taxes and provide universal health care are as untenable today as they were last month, and he has no choice but to reverse course.

Don’t get me wrong-- I am delighted that President elect Obama is retreating from many of his impractical ideas. Tax hikes, like the ones supported by Obama just a few weeks ago, would devastate the economy. So would the taxes he would need to levy to support his myriad spending proposals while balancing the budget.

But the President elect’s new affection for truly staggering levels of government spending, undoubtedly supported by increased borrowing, raises many questions that should give us all pause.

Can we afford another $700 billion in spending, especially if is it spent over two years? What effect will this stimulus have on the deficit? Can we continue to saddle American taxpayers with more and more debt without there being consequences? Where will the Democratic Congress and The White House set future taxes, and should we expect some old fashion taxing and spending to accompany the current round of spending and borrowing? What happens if this $700 billion in spending, like the last, fails to stimulate the economy?

The sooner we know the answers to these questions, the sooner we will know the precise intentions of President elect Obama, and the sooner the economy will regain a sense of certainty. Until then, “change” could very well mean that our President will change his mind on the issues every few weeks or so.

Of course Senator Obama wants to redistribute wealth. The real story is that Republicans are still trying to convince voters of such an obvious point just one week before the election. 
 
Much has been made of Obama’s past and current comments relating to wealth.  These comments are insignificant compared to his policy proposals.
 
Obama promises to raise taxes on 5% of the working families, and redistribute it in the form of refundable tax credits and spending programs (at least a trillion dollars worth). This is wealth redistribution and it is a promise that Obama says he will keep as President.  It is not a fake news controversy.
 
So why are we still debating whether or not Obama is a redistributionist?  It is because the McCain campaign ignored the obvious for most of this election season, and chose to focus on trifling issues such as Paris Hilton.  Had they not, perhaps the GOP would not be battling to win states like Virginia and North Carolina.
 
The good news is that Obama’s plans to redistribute wealth do not add up.  He cannot cut taxes on 95% of working families, provide universal health care and balance the budget, as promised. 
 
The bad news is that we do not really know what Barack Obama will do as President.  Will he increase the deficit even more?  Raise taxes on additional families?  Give us universal health care? Or chart a different path all together?
 
We do know that if Obama fulfills his spending promises, then he will have to raise taxes on the middle class if he expects to balance the budget. That means even more wealth redistribution.
 
There is a big question mark hanging over Senator Obama’s candidacy.  It is too bad the McCain campaign is only now coming to understand the implications of Obama’s lefty promises.  Had they figured it out sooner, McCain might be on top right now, not Obama. 

As we watch balance sheets fall to pieces on Wall Street, now is probably a good time to examine the fiscal agenda of the man who promises change: Barack Obama. The next President will deal with some difficult fiscal issues, and Obama wants us to believe that he is somehow different than your typical politician, but he is not.

Barack Obama has made some big promises over the past year, but none is more astonishing than his pledge to cut taxes, balance budgets and increase government spending. While he is surely capable of fulfilling any of one of his fiscal pledges, Obama cannot do all three at the same time. This is probably why Obama has started breaking these promises before Election Day and will continue to break these promises should he find himself elected.

One the more underreported stories this cycle is the effect Obama’s tax plan will have on the deficit. His tax plan will raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% of families. He also proposes a variety of new tax credits and enhancements. The estimated cost according to the Tax Policy Center is $2.9 trillion over 10 years.

Unfortunately, the Obama plan will widen the projected deficit. According to the Tax Policy Center (TPC), Obama's tax plan “would substantially increase the deficit compared with current law and would add nearly $3.3 trillion to the national debt over ten years”

Obama’s deficit presents a big problem, because it runs contrary to his promise to balance the budget. Obama’s website writes that he supports pay-go budgeting, which to most Democrats, means that he must offset the costs of his tax plan with new revenue (e.g. taxes), or additional spending cuts. In this case, Obama’s tax plan, would require $2.9 trillion tax increase, or a $2.9 trillion cut in spending.

Given that Obama has already laid out his tax plan, and that it does not appear to include an additional $2.9 trillion tax increase, he must be planning to cut spending. He is not.

Obama wants to increase spending, by at least a trillion dollars over ten years. Because Obama has been speaking guilefully for so long, estimates vary widely on the exact costs of his spending. A Republican analysis puts his total spending at $1.4 trillion over five years (that’s roughly $2.8 trillion over ten). Two reasonable analyses, one by the TPC and another by the National Taxpayer's Union Foundation (NTUF) put his new spending estimates at between $1.6 trillion and $3.4 trillion over 10 years respectively. The TPC analysis is significant because it appears to be limited to the costs of Obama’s health care plan. Even the liberal Paul Krugman doubts that the Obama tax plan will deliver enough revenue to pay for universal health.

Depending on the math you choose to believe, Obama will need to cough up at least $4.5 trillion and as much as $6.3 trillion to pay for the costs of his spending and tax cuts.

Given that Obama has yet to identify $4 -6 trillion in unnecessary government spending, he will be forced by standard Democratic pay-go rules to break his promise to provide tax cuts for 95% of families. According to one Republican analysis, Obama will need to raise taxes 61% on those earning over $62,000 if he expects to balance the budget while keeping his promise to increase spending.

Clearly, Obama cannot keep his fiscal promises because he cannot cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. To cut taxes, he will have to abandon either his plans to increase spending and/or balance the budget. To provide universal health care, he will need to break his promise to provide middle class tax cuts and/or balance the budget. To balance the budget, he will probably need to abandon his tax plan and/or his promise for universal health.

Obviously confronted with the illogic of his campaign rhetoric, Obama is now retreating from his promise to balance the budget. He has adopted a clever accounting trick that eliminates the costs of his tax cuts, even though the TPC says that these cuts will cost trillions, increase the deficit and enlarge our national debt. So much for pay-go budgeting.

My guess is that Obama will have no option but to continue breaking his fiscal pledges. Working with what should be Democratic Congress, Obama will probably let the Bush tax cuts expire, without much modification except for the very lowest brackets. He will also permit deficit spending, which could hit record highs in light of recent government bailouts. This environment will force Obama to abandon his health care schemes faster than Bill Clinton did in the 1990’s.

With what are we voters left? Not change, just a politician making promises that that he knows he cannot possibly keep without taking our current fiscal difficulties and making them worse. Either way, by act of commission or omission, Obama will probably leave our national balance sheet in worse shape than some financial firms. That is of course, if he succeeds in getting elected.

Christopher Coffey is a Republican consultant, veteran of numerous political campaigns and contributor to AndreaTantaros.com.

For a candidate who has made the concept of change the hallmark of his entire campaign for President of the United States, Barack Obama has mobilized an echo chamber that is reflective of anything but. Policy positions aside, this crucial juncture calls for surrogates who will highlight and bolster the reform message, not negate it.

Webster's defines a surrogate as a substitute for oneself. If that's accurate, why is the “agent of change” turning to the same stable of democratic spinners?

When it was time to pick a Vice President, a compliment to one’s skill set, a partner and a mouth piece, the pick was...Joe Biden?  Not only is Biden the furthest thing from change, he is also one word away from the political equivalent of a Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. Politicians are prone to word, not wardrobe, malfunctions. And Biden is a repeat offender.  Just this week, rather than laud Hillary for her achievement, he admitted Obama should have picked Senator Clinton instead. I couldn't agree with you more, Joe. And after that sentiment we all see why you're right on this one. Can't wait for the debates.

When the wheels started to come off Barack's bus thanks to Sarah Palin's epic rise with American females he ran to...Hillary Clinton? Let's get one thing straight. Biden was right. But a symbol of change she is not. Obama dispatched her anyway. She wasn't good enough for the ticket but she was good enough for a cat fight? Putting a political institution like Hillary, as popular as she may be, to go a few rounds with a peripheral prize fighter like Palin only contrasted the change verses experience argument to Obama's detriment. To her credit, Hillary was much too smart to take the bait.

Next in the change conga line? None other than Bill Clinton. You know it's bad when the Obamas are dispatching Bubba. Unpredictable, often off message and a relic of our country's political past, Clinton adds no refreshing shift in direction and runs in direct contrast to Obama’s alleged “different kind of politics.” Bill is damaged goods from a primary season of Days of Our Lives drama and hits rewind as a reminder of the scandal plagued 1990’s.

When it comes to really profound political friends and ambassadors, we can’t forget the epicenter of change and diversity: Hollywood. The sprinkles on the icing have been the immergence of Democratic deities like Matt Damon who recently compared Sarah Plain to a bad Disney movie.  If Palin equals Disney then Obama's film genre is Ben Affleck: grossly overhyped, hard to follow, anemic on substance, and poised for a disappointing ending.

McCain, on the other hand, has looked mostly outside of the beltway for his motley messengers: Huckabee, Romney, Rudy, and best of all, Sarah Palin.

Obama interpreted the Webster’s meaning precisely. If surrogates are a substitute for oneself, his team is a clear indicator we're not poised for change you can believe in, but more of the same we should run from.  

Dear Democrats,

You still don't get it. Election Day is weeks away and you appear as discombobulated as Republicans did a few short months ago. Your anger at the GOP, at Bush, at anyone who is unlike you in mindset and values is more than palpable, it's nauseating, even for the centrists in your party. I know you are ticked at our current President (I can appreciate that sentiment on some fronts) but you are doing major damage to your cause. Your nominee looks weak, his running mate is worthy of a missing person’s report, and your party looks rattled. It is rare that I give you advice, but I can't help myself.

Tighten up and pick a message. I know McCain effectively yanked the change mantra out of your hands when he selected Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate and your nominee settled on establishment fixture Joe Biden, but you've got to get over it. There are other ways to go after Republicans. You tried the John McBush routine. It bombed. There is no plausible way anyone would believe McCain is Bush when conservatives still bristle at the mere mention of his name and resisted warming up to him until two weeks ago. (Remember immigration reform, campaign finance, stem cell research, etc.? Many conservatives do.) You can broaden that theme. (Pssst! We've been running the White House for the last eight years.) Run against our brand.

Rein in the lefties. It's time you told the progressives to stop being so awful. Especially to Sarah Palin. It's like they have nothing else to do but call people names and insult their choices. Where's the tolerance you preach? I'm wondering, is this some kind of bizarre revenge on the popular girl who rejected them in junior high manifesting itself? How low do Obama's poll numbers need to drop before they realize that, just like junior high, taunting the "it" girl to get a reaction doesn't work. They are hurting the man you want to elect and reversing all of his efforts up until this point. Do Senator Obama a favor: tell them to shut down their laptops and head to anger management for the next two months.

Get off defense. In politics, when you're explaining, you're losing. The only thing we've heard out of the Obama camp since Denver are excuses on why your candidate didn't get a bigger bounce after your convention, why the polls are wrong, and why Barack has more experience than Sarah Palin. Senator Obama: you should not be comparing yourself (the top of the ticket) to Palin (the bottom of the Republican ticket). It looks bad. Plus that's my job.

Democrats, you still have time to turn it around, and not with those veiled jabs at McCain's age and stability. By executing real discipline. By intelligently going on offensive. And by not letting us distract you so damn much.

This is what you like to call the fierce urgency of now. Simply put: check yourself before you wreck yourself. If your motto is change you can believe in, right now is the time for some change--believe it.

People have been chattering for weeks that Obama needs to start fighting back. What they meant was fight MCCAIN, not the pro-life movement.

Here's the back story: The solidly pro-choice candidate told Pastor Rick Warren on Saturday during a forum at Saddleback Church in Orange County, CA, that he is in favor of limits on late-term abortions provided exceptions are made for the mother's health. (Note: For all of you that think this is a pragmatic position, it's not. True lefties use the phrase "health of the mother" instead of the stronger "life of the mother" so that women who wake up feeling blue in their third trimester can get an abortion. Feeling gloomy in the minds of far left liberals could be bad for their "health.")

B.O. followed that forum with an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he said the National Right to Life Committee was “lying” about his voting record in the Illinois Senate.

The committee says Obama worked in the Illinois Senate to kill legislation “virtually identical” to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was intended to extend legal rights to an infant born even after an attempted abortion.

“I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying,” Obama said in the interview. “I have said repeatedly that I would have been … fully in support of the federal bill … that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born — even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.” (To give you an idea of the politics around the federal bill, it passed the House overwhelmingly 305-15.)

But he said that was not the bill presented at the state level. Obama said that bill was trying to “undermine” Roe v. Wade and that the Illinois legislature already had a law in place to ensure life-saving treatment is administered to infants.

The NRTL is taking Obama to task. It released a statement Monday saying: “Senator Barack Obama’s four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel.” The Obama camp has since admitted they botched the history of the legislation.

Whether you believe Obama is lying or the converse, let's assess the situation from a political, not policy standpoint:

1. Obama doesn't appear to have his story straight on a very decisive issue. He cannot get bogged down on this topic if he wants to win. A majority of Americans aren't on the radical fringe of the abortion issue. This battle draws more attention to his record and gets him way off message.

2. He has a 100 percent rating from NARAL. You don't get that kind of perfect score as a moderate, middle-of-the-roader. Though he's trying to frame himself in that light, his record speaks for itself. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

3. This is a nightmare for the Democratic Presidential nominee. Conservatives may not have been planning on voting for him, but they may not have been aroused at the idea of John McCain either. Obama just handed them a reason to coalesce around McCain on a silver platter. Timing couldn't be worse for Barry, and better for his opponent.

3A. Launching a concerted effort to garner support among conservatives doesn't generally work when you impune the right to life crowd on Christian programming. Who's next, the NRA???

4. This screams rookie mistake (or borderline idiocy). Candidates must be mindful to get their past positions in order, particularly before they do a forum that focuses largely on religion. If you're nervous about them, take a cue from Rudy and come clean. Or say nothing. It's one thing to change your position and give good reason for it. It's another to distort it, play dumb or have to later admit that you weren't familiar with your own record.

Choice may be the issue that ultimately sinks Obama--and I don't mean abortion. When voters head to the polls it may be that they exercise their right to choose a candidate that's not so extreme, or so extremely injudicious.

Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama is planning a visit to Europe to bolster his flimsy foreign policy credentials next week. There's been talk of a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, where Ronald Reagan and JFK gave speeches. This has caused some controversy.

 

According to the New York Times, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has her reservations:

 

"'Mrs. Merkel has made clear she disapproves of having this potent symbol of German division and reunification pulled into the American election fight. 'To use the Brandenburg Gate in some ways as a campaign backdrop, she has a limited sympathy for this and expresses her skepticism over pursuing such plans,' said a spokesman."

 

It's true Obama needs some grey hair and gravitas. He's clearly no Kennedy or Reagan despite, what he believes, and despite the obvious fact he isn't an elected President.

 

He's a fancy lad, who likes fancy language and fancy faux Presidential seals and backdrops. But this is a risky move. Besides looking presumptuous and immaturely arrogant to think he is on the same level as Reagan or JKF, it could turn off a lot of the American heartland who have yet to see him visit Iraq. While liberals will love it (many favor Europe's social programs and are more concerned with winning a global popularity contest instead of the global War on Terror) the rest of America focuses primarily on domestic issues. That's why it's a gamble for any candidate to spend too much time overseas when there are many crises here at home. Last time I checked there were no votes in Berlin, either.

 

Obama will also have to be very careful with what message he chooses. The history between the East and West has always been complicated. One misstep and he could seem even more inexperienced than he already does. Just a few months ago, the Europeans were not too happy at Senator Obama's gaffe-turned-doctrine to begin direct talks without pre-conditions with leaders of rogue nations, specifically Iran. They viewed his naiveness as a "go at it alone" mentality undermining US and EU joint efforts to expand sanctions on Iran for years.

 

Lately the Obama camp has been backing off talk of the Brandenburg gate as a choice for a locale. Though it would be difficult after all this chatter to back off the venue, Obama has no problem altering his position when things get tough and sharp criticism ensues. I don't expect it to be any different this time around.