Andrea Tantaros

Mike Huckabee wrong to target Natalie Portman, but right to rip glorification of single moms

2011-03-10T00:00:00-05:00

Every so often, this country finds itself in a giant culture clash. On deck for this week is single motherhood: Is it miserable or marvelous? On one side is Mike Huckabee, once the governor of Arkansas and now a rumored White House hopeful for the second time around. On the other side is an overly eager media looking to start a fight with the guy who largely leads the GOP field in a good number of authoritative presidential polls.

The Huck found himself at the center of the storm for comments he made about single motherhood. Headlines everywhere accused him of blasting Oscar-winning actress Natalie Portman for her baby bump:

"One of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie.

"I think it gives a distorted image that yes, not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of wedlock children."

Huckabee and radio host Michael Medved (he brought up Portman and her pregnancy; Huckabee was responding to him) were wrong about Portman's marital status: She is, in fact, engaged. But Huckabee was dead-on about the growing trend of single motherhood and the way our country offers it up as an enticing option for females, without any warning label. Got that? Portman, by herself, isn't troubling; rushing to have a baby without the right resources is.

Read more here

With rising oil prices & Middle East turmoil, it is perfect time to scrap Obama's green dream

2011-02-24T00:00:00-05:00

Every time there is a political hiccup in the Middle East, a national conversation about the possibility of higher oil prices ensues. But a cursory look at recent footage from that volatile region suggests that the revolutions happening in Tunisia, Iran, Egypt and Libya are serious geopolitical events that will have equally serious ramifications for America's energy policy.

There were reports Wednesday that Libya's dictator, Moammar Khadafy, has ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities. Allegedly, they will blow up several oil pipelines, cutting off flow to Mediterranean ports.

While the right and the left fail to find common ground on a national energy plan, we're held hostage, yet again, by the threat of $5-a-gallon oil. Remember how much fun we had with that in 2008, when oil hit a peak of $143 a barrel? It's rising to about $100 right now. Isn't it about time for an adult conversation about energy in this country?

Read more here

Will Mr. Trump go to Washington?: 'Apprentice' star presents Obama with a serious challenge

2011-02-17T00:00:00-05:00

New York icon and business tycoon Donald Trump created a stir when he showed up at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week, the annual gathering for conservatives in Washington and the unofficial start of the 2012 election contest.

Since then, the media have been abuzz with chatter about a possible Trump White House run, but it's mostly been treated as little more than a joke or a publicity stunt. One commentator for the National Review - a conservative stalwart - wrote, "If there is a behavior and style that is 'presidential,' Donald Trump isn't it."

But it's time for the right to knock off the hand-wringing and ponder this question instead: What's so bad about The Donald helping to build a case against President Obama?

Read more here

President Obama doesn't make for a convincing capitalist, fails to find his inner Gordon Gekko

2011-02-10T00:00:00-05:00

Imagine that you're running a company that has felt the economic pain of the last two years, but that you're finally being rewarded for your patience and planning with slightly brightening prospects. Now imagine that the President of the United States just said he's coming after you and your profits.

In a speech this week to the pro-business Chamber of Commerce, that's exactly what President Obama did, making the new narrative that Obama has found his inner Gordon Gekko more wishful Washington storytelling than reality. He may have brought on the likes of William Daley and Jeffrey Immelt, but the President himself is as averse to business as ever.

He promised the chamber that he would work to be "more neighborly" to the business community, and urged it to "get in the game." But businesses aren't going to get into a game they think they're going to lose. Although he paid lip service to investment in new programs (translation: more public spending), in the end Obama reverted to his fundamental, left-leaning beliefs: "If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line."

Read more here

Obama's Arizona address: Prez rightly avoids 'toxic politics' but will the left listen?

2011-01-13T12:12:00-05:00

Despite the pressure from some on the left to capitalize on the Tucson killings for political gain, and amid ocassional inappropriate cheering from the audience, President Obama acutely understood our collective need to heal when he addressed the nation on Wednesday night.

He also knew that anything else would have been downright petty and cynical. So, rather than search for political victims to chastise, he focused his speech on the victims of Saturday's rampage, eulogizing them with the kind of soaring oratory he first became famous for. Obama put politics aside and, like George W. Bush after 9/11 and Bill Clinton after Oklahoma City, he sought to revive our "instincts for empathy."

"At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, it's important that are talking to each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds," he reasoned.

Wednesday night, he was our comforter-in-chief. Finally, and perhaps only momentarily, he allowed us to grieve as one nation, undivided.

When tragedy of such national prominece strikes, our first instinct is to mourn - not as political beings, but human ones. But ever since one crazy individual decided to assault a crowd in Pima County,

Arizona, in pursuit of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, our mourning has been stifled and suppressed by some on the left who disappointingly tried to score political points off the massacre. What should have been a moment of national reflection turned into a calculated game of political football, with the left trying every play in the book.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., shockingly tried to fundraise off the massacre. He sent out an appeal questioning whether "right-wing reactionaries, through threats and acts of violence, intimidated people with different points of view from expressing their political positions." Included, crassly, was a link to donate.

So why wouldn't the left let us mourn?

Read more here

Why Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan: Bam covets the comparison to the Gipper, but it's a stretch

2011-01-06T00:00:00-05:00

As he embarks on the final two years of his first term, President Obama is spending time studying a surprising subject: Ronald Reagan.

Before departing on his Hawaiian holiday, Obama sought advice from Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein and David Gergen, an image adviser to both Reagan and Bill Clinton. While on vacation, his press secretary strategically announced over Twitter that his beach reading consisted of Lou Cannon's Reagan biography, "The Role of a Lifetime." Obama aides are busy making comparisons between the two men - emphasizing Reagan's troubles in his first term, and his rebound thereafter - with the hope of refurbishing Obama's brand after a bruising midterm election cycle.

But let's be honest. A side-by-side comparison shows that the analogy is quite a stretch despite similarities like poll numbers and personal likability - and not just because of the obvious differences in ideology.

Read more here

Sarah Palin, Tea Party, China among 2010's winners, but Obama, taxpayers, Europe lose big time

2010-12-30T00:00:00-05:00

This year has been a tumultuous one, particularly when it comes to politics. The economic pain has continued and has seemingly awoken American voters, who voiced their frustrations at the polls in November. After about 365 days of ups and downs, here's who came out on top, and who didn't fare as well.

Read more here

More Obamacare insanity: Sebelius' shameless attempt to jawbone insurers on costs

2010-12-23T00:00:00-05:00

In early September, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - throwing her new weight around after the passage of Obamacare - threatened the health insurance industry with a letter that spelled out "zero tolerance" for "unjustified rate increases."

This week, her agency unveiled a new rule that allows the federal government to decide what counts as an "unreasonable" rate increase. The upshot: If an insurance company increases the cost of a premium to above 10%, it may well feel the wrath of the feds.

There's just one problem: Under Obamacare, the federal government does not have the authority to block or overturn an insurance price increase. (Congress debated whether or not to give the Health and Human Services Department this authority during the crafting of the legislation, but it was ultimately rejected.) In point of fact, 43 states already regulate and approve rates in the individual or small business market through their insurance commissioners. This new law would let them continue to do their job - unless the federal government were to decide that their reviews weren't "effective." Once again, government is overreaching and telling private business what to do.

Read more here

Earmarks turn Capitol Hill into a pork fest: Congress insults voters with new orgy of waste

2010-12-16T00:00:00-05:00

Christmas is coming, and budgets are getting fat. Whether you've just started your holiday shopping or already finished it, lots of politicians in Washington want to spend more of your hard-earned money this season in their home states.

Yep, earmarks - much decried, much reviled - are back in a big way, with a record $8 billion in requests packed into the massive, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill.

It's proof, as though we needed any more, that despite the outrage outside of Washington, this Democratic-controlled Congress just can't stop spending. No wonder, according to a brand new Gallup poll, a record low 13% of the public approves of the job Congress is doing.

And, despite cries of protest from the Republicans, their hands are dirty too.

Did they think nobody would notice? Not only are people paying attention, but they're gagging on the heavy helping of pork that the pols are putting on their plates.

Read more here

Message to new congress: investigate, investigate, investigate

2010-11-25T00:00:00-05:00

When Republicans officially take control of the House of Representatives, they'll also take control of its committees, giving them the power to hold hearings and haul whom they choose to Capitol Hill. While hearings can be a delicate dance between witch-hunt and fact-finding exercise, the public always deserves answers and accountability. Here are some suggestions on who deserves an invitation for inquiry.

Read more here

Lettuce eat salad: the First Lady's food fetish keeps growing

2010-11-23T17:51:31-05:00

First the White House lectured you on sugar. Then they tried to motivate you to plant an organic vegetable garden. Now they want to shove leafy greens down your kids’ throat.

As part of the "Let’s Move" campaign, it’s been reported that First Lady Michelle Obama plans to announce a new initiative on Monday that would place up to 5,000 salad bars in public schools nationwide.-- We knew the president liked arugula. We didn’t know it was this much.

Read more here

It's time for Rangel to step down

2010-11-22T00:00:00-05:00

There is a saying: to whom much is given, much is expected. In the case of 20-term New York Rep. Charlie Rangel, he was given a lot of power as Chairman of the influential House Ways and Means Committee. What was expected in return was the same as any elected official: they must avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act respectably and ethically at all times, putting the people before their power lust and personal gain. Rangel, however, did none of that.

After years of delaying and feet dragging by his own party for political cover, Rangel was finally found guilty this week by unanimous consent of the bi-partisan House ethics subcommittee on 11 of 13 ethics counts mounted against him. The charges: violating New York City's building code, improperly using congressional letterhead, and failing to file his taxes. Today the committee censured Rangel, a rare move of discipline that the House hasn’t invoked since 1983.

Read more here

After historic wins, GOP must play hardball

2010-11-03T00:00:00-05:00

After it was evident that the GOP would make huge gains in the House and Senate, the question on Election Eve was this: will the right light a peace pipe or a grenade when it comes to how they’ll deal with Democrats?

Though many pundits insisted that both sides would take a conciliatory tone and argued that right an left have no choice but to work together in the next two years, reality rained on their parade.

The GOP has moved to the right after a long stretch where they acted like big government liberals.

And the left has become even more progressive as conservative Democrats were defeated last night.

Any notion that Congress would be singing kumbaya with the White House was sorely mistaken. And for good reason.

Read more here

Beware the coming imperial President

2010-10-24T00:00:00-05:00

For years there have been promises of changing the tone in Washington. That promise has been kept, but not in the intended way. With President Obama presiding over a Democratic Congress, the mood has gone from nasty to nastier. But if you imagine what the next two years will be like if Republicans take control of the House, as is expected, with Obama as President and a closely divided Senate between them, one word comes to mind: gridlock.

To those currently groaning, it should be noted that after what this country just went through, gridlock can be a good thing. These very vocal and bloody checks and balances will stop massive stimulus bills and monstrous bailouts. We aren't likely to see another redesign of another portion of our economy with such deep divisions. That alone is welcome news.

As frustrating as it can be, gridlock also gives business owners and the markets certainty - something that they have desperately needed. The fear of the unknown has essentially crippled the business community and deterred risk taking - an integral component for entrepreneurs to foster growth. If next month's election produces a traffic jam, the private sector can at least have the certainty that no radical action will occur. History shows that more gains can then be expected for stock prices.

Of course, gridlock does have serious downsides.

There's the obvious fear that gridlock means more fighting and more partisan wars that an all-too-eager media is anxious to document, especially in the midst of a presidential election. It also means that action on key items like repealing Obamacare will become more fantasy than reality, at least for now. And it means the GOP will need to carefully manage expectations about its own gains.

So far Republicans have been savvy enough not to promise the public the world. But with little moving legislatively, it will be up to them to communicate to the angry masses that a majority in Congress is still facing a President with a veto pen and executive powers (ones he plans on using). This is the scariest, and most realistic, drawback of them all.

Though Obama recently admitted that he planned on using "hand to hand combat" with a Republican Congress, reports reveal a much sneakier strategy. According to the Los Angeles Times, "as President Obama remakes his senior staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the second half of his term: to advance his agenda through executive actions he can take on his own, rather than pushing plans through an increasingly hostile Congress."

Read more here

Dems are losing the gender war

2010-10-21T00:00:00-05:00

For years, Democrats have patted themselves on the back for being the self-appointed party of women. While Republican women have watched enviously, over the years the left has elected more women to Congress, marketed them skillfully in glossy magazines by using a complacent and willing network of women's media and has been able to galvanize support from liberal women by relying on organizations like EMILY's List, which recruits female Democratic candidates who support abortion.

In 2010, that's changing. If you haven't read the headline now sending shivers down every feminist's back, here it is: 2010 is the year of the Republican woman.

Read more here

Vice President Clinton? Obama might not have a choice but to swap Biden for Hillary

2010-10-07T15:13:08-05:00

With Barack Obama's administration sinking, there has been - and likely will continue to be - a lot of chatter on whether or not Hillary Clinton (above) will challenge the current President in 2012. While it's highly unlikely she'd divide the Democratic Party by pursuing the White House, she may find herself there via another route.

This week the rumor mill was abuzz again after respected journalist Bob Woodward alleged that the idea of a Biden-Clinton swap is "on the table." He would take the secretary of state job, while she would take second billing on Obama's return ticket to the White House.

While a switcheroo might not be in the cards, an Obama-Clinton is nevertheless a real possibility for Vice President. With Democrats in duress and the President's popularity plummeting, especially with white voters, Obama might have no choice but to add her to the ticket if he has any hopes for a second term.

Read more here

This is war, not a law seminar: Obama is more Carter than Churchill

2010-09-30T00:00:00-05:00

A great leader knows how to feel the pain of his people. He acknowledges their struggles, but offers hope. As the Nazis set their sights on England, Winston Churchill famously told the House of Commons: "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

President Obama has no such vision, as is made clear in Bob Woodward's new book, "Obama's Wars." Instead, he is a professor in chief, coolly regarding the nation's problems like a case study to be analyzed without urgency.

"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger," Obama told Woodward.

The President's words have some scratching their heads, even seething.

Read more here

Yes, we can dump Obamacare: A roadmap for a GOP repeal

2010-09-23T15:17:00-05:00

Six months ago this week, Obamacare was a celebration for the left. Now, after a flashy White House bill signing, the new entitlement program is a political hot potato that nobody wants to touch.

On the campaign trail, Democrats are not just running from the issue - they are ignoring it altogether. Not one Democrat has taken an ad out touting the package, though many voted for its passage. And while Democrats duck, Republicans are seizing this opportunity. In the GOP's new "governing agenda," unveiled today, there is a pledge for repeal, while others in the party have proposed options for reversing or replacing this package. But how realistic are these proposed alternatives?

Read more here

Stop mocking the Tea Party: If anyone is nuts, it's the elites and incumbents

2010-09-18T00:00:00-05:00

Tuesday night was a terrible evening for political operatives because people voted with their conscience, not along party lines. Elites aren't happy about it, and even the GOP is fuming.

Meanwhile, Washington Democrats are trying desperately to paint anti-establishment candidates as a pack of crazies. They're hoping to distract the public from the more pressing issues that have their party's polls in the dumps.

Sure, many that comprise this new wave of politics are atypical. They aren't polished. They're not carefully scripted, and they lack TelePrompTers, pedigree and cozy friendships with Karl Rove. Because of it, political consultants and "insiders" insist they're wacky. However, the popularity of their message shows that they're anything but.

Read more here

The bizarre moral relativism of Mayor Michael Bloomberg

2010-09-09T12:07:23-05:00

Mayor Bloomberg has taken moral relativism to a whole new level when it comes to the First Amendment and the role of government. This week the mayor bizarrely defended one Florida pastor's call to burn Korans on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 in a blatant act of retaliation and revenge against Muslims.

"I happen to think that it is distasteful. I don't think he would like it if somebody burnt a book that in his religion he thinks is holy ... but the First Amendment protects everybody," Bloomberg said.

Someone needs to cue the mayor in: Burping at the dinner table is distasteful. Burning a religious text is outright offensive.

Read more here

Bush rising

2010-08-26T00:00:00-05:00

George W. Bush has been the presidential equivalent of a punching bag. Before he left office, he was vilified for the war in the Middle East, the credit crisis and the housing crisis. Democrats ran against his persona and policies in the 2008 election and successfully painted the Republican nominee for President, Arizona Sen. John McCain, as his Doppelganger.

He was radioactive, and even Republicans viewed him as such. But these days, though he's seemingly blamed for everything but bad weather by the left, Bush is making a comeback. As President Obama's approval numbers slide, people are starting to see the man they once laughed at and loathed isn't looking so bad.

Read more here

Spain trip blows Michelle Obama's "every woman" cover

2010-08-12T18:47:00-05:00

When images of Jean Paul Gaultier-clad First Lady Michelle Obama on a $75,000-a-day Spanish holiday hit the wires, controversy was bound to erupt back home. Her carefully crafted image as "everywoman" was blown.

In addition to the high cost, the evolving justifications for the trip offered by the White House's flack were just as dizzying.

First it was a private, mother-daughter trip that press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to comment on.
Then, the White House said she was paying for most of the trip, but that the taxpayers would pay for some of it because she'd be meeting with the King and Queen of Spain. The East Wing's final justification was that the First Lady traveled to Spain to comfort a friend who'd lost her husband.

The spin revealed that the White House had a public relations problem: After attempting to further the notion that she was just the woman next door, it couldn't help that the First Lady looked positively royal. That only cemented the suspicion that she is far fancier and higher maintenance than she, or her handlers, would like us to believe.

Read more here

As President Obama demonizes the rich, Material girl Michelle Obama is a modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation

2010-08-05T07:55:00-05:00

Sacrifice is something that many Americans are becoming all too familiar with during this economic downturn. It was a key theme in President Obama's inaugural address to the nation, and he's referenced it numerous times when lecturing the country on how to get back on its feet.

But while most of the country is pinching pennies and downsizing summer sojourns - or forgoing them altogether - the Obamas don't seem to be heeding their own advice. While many of us are struggling, the First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her "closest friends." According to CNN, the group is expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms, more than a third of the lodgings at the 160-room resort. Not exactly what one would call cutting back in troubled times.

Reports are calling the lodgings of Obama's Spanish fiesta, the Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella, "luxurious," "posh" and "a millionaires' playground." Estimated room rate per night? Up to a staggering $2,500. Method of transportation? Air Force Two.

To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.

Perhaps it could be that the Obamas, who seem to fancy themselves more along the lines of international celebrities than actual leaders, espouse a different view of sacrifice. When Michelle Obama accompanied her husband to Copenhagen along with best buddy Oprah Winfrey, she billed the trip - an ultimately unsuccessful bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago - as follows: "As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the President to come for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home."
A quick jaunt to Denmark is a sacrifice? What portraits in courage!

The Obama modus operandi is becoming clear...

Read more here:

Bam's coalition is imploding: Women, white men, Jews, even Hispanics are abandoning President Obama

2010-07-29T19:35:00-05:00

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

The problem with letting the Bush tax cuts expire

2010-07-22T00:00:00-05:00

Though few are talking about it, the most important political fight to hit Washington is on deck to occupy the next six months of debate: Whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year. While it doesn't sound sexy, the ramifications of the decision will be a crucial pivot point for the national economy.

Although the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed with bipartisan support, you can expect class warfare this time around. Liberal Democrats will push to keep the cuts in place only for the middle class, while screaming that Republicans are eternally trying to favor the rich. On the other hand, fiscally conservative Democrats and most Republicans will point out that hiking taxes on the rich will wreak havoc on investment and employment projections. And they're right.

The problem with taxing the supposedly "rich" is that the vast majority of those in the top bracket are owners of small businesses. Because most file as individuals, they are subject to the individual tax rates. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99.7% of all employer firms, employ more than half of all private-sector workers and generated 64% of the net new jobs from 1993 to 2008.

At a time when unemployment is a chief concern, dramatically increasing taxes on this segment of the economy would be the worst thing for our jobs outlook. Plus, taking new jobs off the table will hurt only the middle class, already hit hard by the dismal employment picture in the form of sluggish hiring and depressed wages.

Read more here

Gulf crisis has Obama sinking

2010-07-15T00:00:00-05:00

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:

Obama vs. Arizona: The President is fighting a reckless war that will backfire politically

2010-07-07T00:00:00-05:00

The Obama administration is getting quite the reputation for bucking the wishes of the people. From pushing through an unpopular health care bill to imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling that's costing the already-suffering gulf region precious jobs, it has refused to back down when it comes to the will of the masses.

Now, President Obama's Justice Department has decided to sue the State of Arizona over its new law targeting illegal aliens, when a majority of the public favors the legislation, leaving many to wonder if the increasingly detached White House has gone too far.

The administration says its lawsuit is all about the law; Arizona, it says, is trying to enforce immigration statutes - which is the federal government's job alone.

It's hard to believe from a President who has already shaken the finger of moral disapproval at the bill.

Rather, anyone with basic political sense can see the move for what it is: a purely political maneuver intended to invigorate Hispanic voters - a key piece of the Democratic base - in time for the November elections. Obama is hoping that a bloody judicial showdown on immigration will translate into high turnout for Democrats. And that could be enough to sustain Democratic majorities in Congress.

Read more here:

Finally, the left supports Petraeus -- four years too late

2010-07-01T00:00:00-05:00

Finally, the far left has figured out when to shut up. After years of taunting, jeering and seeking to criticize and undermine Gen. David Petraeus, they're now, thankfully, staying silent when it comes to the man who has been tasked with picking up the pieces in a very volatile Afghanistan.

No surprise why those on the left are suddenly patient and understanding: A Democrat is commander in chief.

When George W. Bush selected Petraeus to lead the much-debated surge in Iraq, an onslaught of criticism ensued. In perhaps the most disgusting display of disloyalty, MoveOn.org spent thousands of dollars to personally humiliate the general in a full-page ad that read: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

In the days that followed, the Senate voted on a resolution to condemn the attacks on Petraeus' honor and integrity. It passed with 72 "yeas" to 25 "nays" and 3 not voting, displaying that Petraeus hadn't just become an enemy of the far left, but also of some moderate Democrats, as well. Members like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) both voted against the resolution. In fact, it was a 2007 presentation, in front of the Armed Services Committee, of Petraeus' reports on progress that set the stage for the MoveOn.org ad; there, a highly critical Clinton said that the general's reports about conditions on the ground required a "willing suspension of disbelief."

Then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) chose not to give the general his full support, instead choosing to abstain on the resolution vote. So did then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). They were two of only three.

My, how things can change.

Read more here:

The bogey man: why does a small white ball bedevil President Obama?

2010-06-24T00:00:00-05:00

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:

Obama's bogus blue-ribbon oil spill panel has no expertise - and is poised to do his bidding

2010-06-16T00:00:00-05:00

If you want to look like you're doing something in Washington, appoint a commission. Nothing says sleeves are being rolled up like a federal task force of "experts." The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no different.

During his Oval Office address to the nation this week, President Obama stressed that steps are being taken to ensure that a catastrophe like the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico never happens again.

One of these steps is - you guessed it - a newly formed blue-ribbon panel, appointed by Obama himself.

As he put it: "Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That's why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge."

Translation: I need to look good so I've compiled a jury of Ivy League-educated intelligentsia, lawyers and politicians to extend the sins of one company to an entire industry, all in six months.

Meet the magnificent seven: Frances Beinecke, Donald Boesch, Terry Garcia, Cherry Murray, Frances Ulmer, former EPA Administrator William Reilly and former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.). The team will be led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Graham and Reilly are D.C. bureaucrats. Garcia and Ulmer are lawyers. Chu, who had to be told how BP's funnel worked, is a Nobel Prize winner (just like the President). Feel better?

Bizarrely, not one member of the commission has actual experience in the oil industry, which begs the question: Could any of these people actually drill a well?

Read more here