Andrea Tantaros

Healthcare Fatal Attraction

2010-02-24T09:28:23-05:00

Fatal Attraction, the Washington version is playing on a television near you as Obamas bipartisan summit on health care approaches. Like a possessed, rejected maniac the president refuses to allow the idea of a massive restructuring of our health care system to fade.

Youre just not that into his health care bill? Too bad. He wont be ignored.

Obama is hoping that by rebranding and reworking the old, rejected versions of the House and Senate bill into an even scarier narrative coupled with a televised meeting, the pressure will be so intense that he can kidnap the handful of Republican votes he needs to catapult this monstrosity over the finish line.

To get our attention, Democrats attempted legislative suicide. After laying low, they're back again, and like any prey dealing with a psycho, Republicans are nervous.

They understand that this is a carefully calculated public relations gimmick designed to force their hand. They know that if they dont show up, the images of empty chairs across the table from their caucus will be used, repeatedly, to paint them as unwilling to govern and to target them in campaign ads as obstructionists. Forget alerting the wife, the White House is going to out your bad behavior on C-SPAN. In other words: this is blackmail, Beltway style.

Like any concerned observer frightened for my friends life, as well as my own, I urged Republicans to set some terms and not accept the invitation to the presidents gathering unless he agreed to start over. Apparently, Mr. Obama was in favor of a second chance for the relationship and demonstrated his willingness by crafting a more expensive and politically explosive version of the first health care bill -- just on his own terms (so much for bipartisanship).

Attention all elected officials: at some point, you need to dig in your heels and do the right thing. For too long the GOP has been concerned with staging and games. On Thursday, they finally have a chance to be principled, but because of the looming land mine, they must acquiesce.

In the days and hours that surround the meeting, the GOP must sing off the same song sheet and often. They must repeat that this summit is, by design, one big trick, and that they have crafted health care plans of their own that have been disregarded.

In the meeting, the right must stick to script, backs facing the wall. Do no harm. No flipping of chairs or sudden outbursts of uncontrollable anger. Let Obama boil the bunnies.

For rank and file Democrats, Thursdays dance is much more delicate. Obama is winking and nodding his way through the process, while hes triangulating and strangling his own party.

You see, the real drama is set to occur after Thursday.

News outlets are reporting that Democrats plan to jam the Senate bill thru the House, then pass the Obama amendments as part of a smaller bill, using reconciliation, with changes to the Senate bill. This would prevent the need to go back to the Senate again with all the legislative provisions that could be out of order. It is still questionable whether some legislative provisions in the new Obama bill will be allowed in the Senate. The new price control commission, for example, may not make the cut. But the final, most climactic scene will be the House.

Will they vote for the big Reid bill -- as is? Will they accept the Senate abortion language, or no public option, for example?

Grab the popcorn. This will be great theater. If I were a House Democrat, I'd be petrified.

With each passing week that the president ignores jobs, choosing to focus on his obsession and an unprecedented legislative trick to stalk the public into a submitting to a relationship they dont want, the more he looks like a lunatic who has escaped the asylum, just waiting to surprise you outside your window, in the rain on your fire escape until you relent.

What has become evident to everyone except the Democratic leadership is that the American majority has no interest in a relationship so dysfunctional, so unstable, so completely unhealthy.

Obama has stumbled many times trying to get his way. Act Two of heath care reform might be his biggest mistake on the issue yet. In an effort to hit a button to reset the process, he might have hit the one that just blew it up. Like any good horror film, the element thats most despised just wont die. Lets hope we can finish health care off before anyone gets hurt.

Time for Obama to clean house

2010-02-23T15:52:00-05:00

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

Conservatives must focus on the culture

2010-02-18T00:00:00-05:00

Over the course of the next few days conservatives will gather in Washington for CPAC -- the Conservative Political Action Conference. Expect more attendees than last year’s record turnout – The Washington Times reports that registration is up 20 percent – and prepare for more passion from them. This demo is particularly fed up with the incompetence of government, and more jubilation as they see this as an opportunity to take back control of congress.

But a conference, summit, or large gathering in Washington or elsewhere does not a majority make. While speeches, doctrine and official statements might be helpful if they encourage Republican office-holders to stay within the guard rails of responsible conduct, words are nothing without real action.

While you will hear the right speak of a dysfunctional Washington amid calls for a more effective and responsible government, don’t be fooled. Big, powerful government is intoxicating -- even to Republicans. Many modern day GOP-ers believe that they can manage the gigantic welfare state in a "smarter" way using private sector techniques. This is wrong, and strays far from true conservatism.

To really embrace conservatism, over the next three days, weeks, months and years, the right must address and implement a plan to influence the culture. Waging battles over health care, climate change and taxes are acceptable, but they will be short lived. The real fight must be to win the all encompassing, larger war with the left over the cultural the permeates our nation. If we cede this ground, there is nothing left to fight for.

Modern day culture has become so coarse because it is largely driven by the left. They rule the trifecta of cultural influence: the media, academia and entertainment. Americans are lonely. They are seeking some kind of meaning outside of themselves, and the culture does not provide it. It provides materialism, superficiality, and general diversions from life but not significant meaning. That is why a Republican agenda based on materialism (“Give me my damn tax cut,” will prove fruitless and unsustainable). It is also why there is currently a general disgust for both political parties.

This is a profound difference from 50 years ago when churches, local communities, and other healthy, thriving private institutions provided significant meaning to peoples' lives. That was a time when those institutions were healthier, and played more significant roles in the lives of citizens. It was where Americans found meaning and identity. It was also a time when it would have been far less likely that people would have permitted government encroachment in the private realm. As these local institutions have atrophied, government has grown.

If the right wants to protect a "private realm," that is, a part of our society that remains private, where WE make decisions and where the government is not welcome, then that private realm must be filled with more meaning and cultural significance than it is now. Currently, there is no urgency to protect us from a government that reaches deeper and deeper into our private lives. Why? Because our nation’s private realm is populated with greedy and rapacious money grubbers, elites who are profoundly warped, trashy icons, and other human low-lives.

Historically, during the early Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church was a profoundly spiritual institution, governments in Europe would never have considered encroaching on their realm. The assault on the Church that occurred during the Reformation only happened after the Church had made significant errors and sent the clear message that they were primarily driven by power and property, not by a spiritual mission. In short, the private realm must be worth protecting from government encroachment, or it will happen again.

As I have said many times before, conservatives need to show that they honor those on the right who jump into the cultural realm. Instead of honoring some Senator from the South at their annual galas, they should honor the author, the filmmaker, the head of the foundation, the professor -- those who are pushing back on the dominant liberal culture in a non-political way.

More than showing that they value these things, the right needs to act. Conservatives need to start think tanks that think about more than short-term legislation, create their own film studios, start publishing houses that publish conservative novels not just political books, take over museum boards or start their own museums, etc. Conservative politicians and policymakers need to support all this by going after liberal cultural institutions like universities. They need to hold hearings on how they waste money and how bizarre the curriculum is. But, the politicians should be in the supporting roles, not the main actors in a cultural revival. It is We the People who make up the movement that must invoke real change.

Liberalism is the default mode of our cultural society. If conservatism doesn’t seek ways to influence the direction of our society and connect in emotional and meaningful ways culturally, it will rightfully wither away. An agenda based on materialism (in other words: “show me the money”) - is insufficient. Conservatism can -- and must -- reach higher.

Beware Republicans, it's a trap

2010-02-09T11:22:22-05:00

Break out the bipartisanship. President Obama is ready for another summit. This time he’s invited Republicans to the table later this month to discuss potential compromises on health care reform amid widespread complaints that efforts so far by him, and his Democratic allies in Congress, have been too one sided and secretive.

But Republicans must proceed with caution. This is a trap.

Obama needs to publicly appear more pragmatic and less partisan. And, after Scott Brown’s upset win in Massachusetts last month, he also needs some Republicans to help him get his proposal passed. By letting the bill totally fail, he doesn’t get that glossy narrative in the history books that he so desperately wants. If he can persuade a few moderates in the GOP to reconsider their opposition by co-opting a Republican idea or two, Obamacare becomes law and he can tout bipartisanship. Then, when the massive tax increases hit and problems ensue, he can shift the blame to his enemies. If it sounds shady, it is.

The setting of another televised meeting also benefits Obama more than it helps Republicans. It’s called calculated political window-dressing, and Team Obama has a black belt in the sport.

The President knows he’s the better orator and will make Republicans look like a bunch of stone-walling, puerile jerks in the process – much like he did two weeks ago when he visited House Republicans at their Baltimore retreat. There, he lambasted them for saying no to his policies and chastised them for not cooperating – all in front of the TV cameras, even though Republicans had already put forth ideas and were ignored all along.

So why not call a do-over? A majority of Americans want Congress to hit the reset button. According to a Fox News/ Opinion Dynamics poll conducted February 2-3, 2010, 47% of respondents say that the next step in health care reform should be starting over, something Democrats are unwilling to do.

It would be one thing if Republicans actually wanted to reform health care above all other issues. It would be another if the American people actually *wanted* health care reform, but they don’t -- and they certainly aren’t buying the alarmist language being peddled by the left. In fact, they never have.

Read more here

Palin - forget 2012 and become the next Oprah

2010-02-04T12:12:00-05:00

With the exit of Oprah Winfrey now slated for 2011, is Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska, first female GOP vice presidential candidate, mother, author, liberal hallucinogen and now television commentator, poised to fill the void left by the Queen of Talk?

You betcha.

Though many believe she's set her sights on the White House in 2012, Palin should get this through her head now: She would be far more influential as a talk show host than she would be as a presidential candidate, and she should start planning her career trajectory accordingly.

I say this not because Palin is incapable of being an impactful politician, but because she has been profoundly hindered by the left's hateful and perplexing obsession with demeaning and destroying her at all costs.

That sadly renders her a distraction to both parties - one who'd be better off stepping out of the political limelight (at least for now) and into the TV spotlight.

If you think the deep division and party gridlock is bad with President Obama, the alleged uniter, at the helm, picture what a Palin candidacy - and, if that works out, a Palin presidency - would bring. She could barely govern in Alaska with the onslaught of allegations and baseless lawsuits thrown at her daily. Life in the lower 48 would be increasingly more challenging.

Trying to become the next Oprah, on the other hand? For an ambitious and competitive spirit like Palin, that's a mammoth challenge actually worth pursuing. And once you get past the surface differences, the similarities between the two women are pretty striking.

Read more here

Play it Cool GOP, Don't Propose on the Third Date

2010-01-28T12:34:00-05:00

The Democratic Party is appearing increasingly unglued, its members at war with one another. And last night's State of the Union address is unlikely to restore President Obama to his previous rock star status. While the left experiences the political equivalent of a nervous breakdown, the badly bruised Republican Party is rising. As many begin to look to the right and its candidates for answers, the GOP must use caution as it seeks to regain power. Trying to orchestrate a major reinvention would be a big mistake.

Despite the resurgence, there's no question that the right suffers from a leadership vacuum. Still, this gaping hole should not be a cause for concern. Contrary to the beliefs of insiders and political enthusiasts, the right does not need a Sherpa, a Ronald Reagan resurrected from the dead, a new savior - yet.

By anointing a figurehead and potential front-runner in 2012, the result is a person thrust into a spotlight and subjected to immeasurable scrutiny. It also gives the opposition a target that would put this rising star on three years of defensive publicity. Then, factor in the Tantaros Rule: Any person who has tried and failed to run for the office of the President or has been floated as a contender should immediately be disqualified. You know who they are.

Though the next great hope for the right has not been revealed, there is no rush. With many beginning to whisper about South Dakota Sen. John Thune and others, the best thing the right can do for their future is not mention their names.

When it comes to policy, Republicans don't need a dusted off, refigured version of the Contract With America or a nationalized party platform that has Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's seal of approval.

Why roll out a counteragenda when there is no one to implement it? Democrats have total control. Further, why would the right want to nationalize an election? It clearly has been nationalized by the discontent for the other party.

The agenda of the other side is so terrible that Republicans don't need a counterpoint or some savior to lead the party out of the dark. The GOP has taken off the blindfold. Democrats have proven legally blind. Big difference.

Read more here:

Obama's First State of the Union: Delusion and Defiance, Personified

2010-01-28T12:29:00-05:00

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:

Specter's Foot in Mouth Disease

2010-01-22T17:40:00-05:00

Senator Arlen Specter has been in Washington long enough to learn a lot about politics. It’s shame he never learned anything about protocol.

The cranky and politically vulnerable Senior Senator from the Keystone State revealed his outdated and utterly inappropriate mindset when dealing with women on a radio show this week where he snapped at Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, a Republican, demanding she stop interrupting him and act like “a lady”.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, D-PENN.: Now wait a minute, I'll stop and you can talk.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN.: OK.

SPECTER: I'll treat you like a lady, so act like one.

BACHMANN: Well, I am a lady.

SPECTER: My question to you was what did you vote for?

BACHMANN: I voted for prosperity. I didn't vote for the government takeover of private industry.

SPECTER: She said I voted for prosperity. Well, prosperity wasn't a bill.

BACHMANN: Well, why don't we make it a bill?

SPECTER: Now wait a minute me. Don't interrupt me, I didn't interrupt you. Act like a lady.

BACHMANN: Well, I think I'm a lady.

SPECTER: I think you are too, that's why I'm treating you like one but just don't interrupt me.
If this is how he speaks to a colleague during a radio interview, how does he treat his staff behind the scenes? What about his constituents?

His defenders are invoking all sorts of explanations for the gaffe. Some argue that this is how they talk on Capitol Hill, with men calling women "lady". Having worked there for years, I can assure you that is not true. And based on Senator Barbara Boxer's testy reaction when someone called her ma'am, we know that formal titles are preferred.

My favorite is the generational defense. The same excuse they used with Senator Harry Reid. Both speak and behave like they're operating in a different era - one pre equal rights. I’m not an ageist, but in these cases you can bet this DC fixture has worn out his welcome, and worn through the patience of Pennsylvanians.

I’m waiting for the feminist groups to chastise him but I’m not holding my breath. As one of my astute Twitter followers put it: “Do you think (notorious feminist) Maureen Dowd of the New York Times will hear a "settle down sweetie" in his remarks like she did a “You lie BOY” from Congressman Joe Wilson?”

A Pennsylvanian myself, I could tell you Specter’s days are numbered. This comment is simply another nail in the coffin and more evidence that the Democratic Party – albeit a new home for Arlen – is coming unhinged.

Forget the fact that Specter's new party isn't popular already, establishment candidates are unpopular. Especially ones with bad manners. This stale and sexist mentality has no place in Washington, or in the workplace, and - party failures aside - this is enough of a reason to vote Specter and Reid out of power. The time in the real world could do them some good.

After Mass, New York is Next

2010-01-22T11:32:00-05:00

On Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts, a traditionally liberal stronghold, gave the Democrats their most devastating blow in ages by electing a long-shot Republican to the U.S. Senate. Just months earlier, New Jersey delivered a similar outcome in its gubernatorial election.

Both moves indicate that some states, including deeply blue New York, are poised to see party shifts in the next round of elections. With political analysts insisting that if it can happen in the Bay State it can happen in New York, and Republicans planning to aggressively pursue coveted seats in blue states, the left should be panicked, particularly when you look at the similarities.

Both Massachusetts and New York have largely left the Democratic Party in the driver's seat for years. The result has been overtaxing, overspending, out-of-control deficits and painfully high unemployment, triggering a palpable disgust across the electorate.

One key dissatisfied demographic group, in particular, has been the catalyst for the recent sea change: independents. Both Massachusetts and New York boast a significant number of unaffiliated voters. Though Democrats outnumber Republicans in both states, more than 51% of Massachusetts voters are unenrolled, permitting them to vote for either party. New York has not only the Independence Party - which has its own line on the ballot - but also a large group of unaffiliated voters who tend to swing in elections.

It's these swing voters, who voted for Scott Brown by a margin of 73% to 23%, who propelled him to victory in Massachusetts. They're also the group that broke largely for Barack Obama in 2008, and one that is now largely breaking away, displaying that nothing can be taken for granted.

Read more here

Expect a Radioactive Obama After Tonight

2010-01-19T12:54:00-05:00

If you're looking to analyze Barack Obama's first year in office, look no further than the special election in the Bay State. It’s symbolic – and very telling - that one year after Obama’s inauguration, the Democratic candidate is imploding and poised to lose a longtime held seat in a traditionally blue stronghold. Twelve months after Obama was sworn into the office of the President, the Democratic Party is on the verge of implosion.

Despite the spin that Democrats and the White House are pushing, this Massachusetts election has nothing to do with Martha Coakley being a poor candidate, or her running a bad campaign, or George W. Bush (a favorite Democrat talking point).

This race is Barack Obama’s report card, and its outcome is a referendum on the policies and record of his first year in office. Even Coakley squeaks it out, it’ll translate to a failing grade for the Administration and congressional Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and the inarticulate Harry Reid, for their insistence on sticking to, and pushing through, a progressive, radical agenda that the American people overwhelmingly reject.

If Coakley loses, prepare for an every-man-for-himself-mentality in the Democratic Party. Members of Senate and House Democratic caucuses facing re-election in the Fall will run for the hills and from the Hill—specifically Capitol Hill and the White House, while their Republican challengers begin to cut campaign ads featuring the unpopular President and congressional leadership. The President will become radioactive, as Bush was in 2008. Democratic Leadership will face insurmountable challenges trying to rally their troops and pass any piece of legislation going forward. Expect defections on health reform as well.

Many have insisted Obama must scrap his agenda no matter what happens in Massachusetts today. Whatever the results, it’s too close a call for him to stay on his current track. However, if Obama has ignored the polling and the outrage up until now, I have no reason to believe he’ll alter his course. It's ironic that the only hope and change the country is experiencing is a hope that Obama will change his own plans.

Unlike Bill Clinton who bucked his base and moved to the middle after healthcare reform attempt failed, Obama is an ideologue, a kool-aid drinker who really believes in the government takes all mentality. (Bill Clinton also had his wife to blame for Hillarycare. The only thing Obama can pin on Michelle are some stunt vegetables used in the series finale of Top Chef).

When it comes to Reid and Pelosi, they're both in more imminent trouble than Obama. Reid will likely not survive his own election in Nevada. And Democrats may alter course on their own and oust Nancy Pelosi in the Fall if more losses ensue. She has done nothing but harm to her caucus and to the President. (Psst - Steny Hoyer: get the tape measure out to measure for new drapes in her office).

Coakley needs to win big. A knockout is necessary to prove the pollsters and pundits wrong. Without it, expect a fractured, unhinged and disunified Democratic Party. And expect to hear, “Obama who?”

In Massachusetts Senate Race Independents Are Key

2010-01-15T13:36:00-05:00

All eyes are glued to the Massachusetts Senate race where upstart Republican Scott Brown is now in a dead heat with presumed shoo-in Martha Coakley. Non-partisan pollster and analyst Stuart Rothenberg recently and surprisingly placed the race into the “toss up” column. Some polls like Suffolk University/7News has Brown up four; PJM/Cross Target conducted on January 14^th have Brown 15 points ahead.

Many have speculated that residents are unhappy about the health reform bill Democrats are forcing through Congress. While this might be somewhat true, Massachusetts is facing its own challenges from fiscal disaster to deep debt, and a universal healthcare plan implemented by Mitt Romney that has become an unpopular cost-containment nightmare to an impending pension crisis.

The overtaxing and overspending is so pronounced that former Mass Governor Bill Weld says it’s sparked a “primeval reaction” that has transferred to a federal race.

"I think people in Massachusetts, like people all over the country, are suffering from accumulated spending fatigue. First the TARP program, then the stimulus package, then further bailouts, then the price tag on the health care bill, then tax increases-- it has all added up to be too much for the average voter," Weld explains.

The reason for the shift in the race is that these issues are prompting disgust in a key demo: independents.

Many assume that the birthplace of Camelot, the Kennedys and ultra leftist institutions like Harvard translates to a Commonwealth dominated by liberals. Not so. Independents make up roughly 42% of the vote which is the reason Republicans, in recent years, have won statewide elections (Governors Romney, Paul Celucci, and Weld).

The role of the independent vote in the state, says Weld, is “dominant.”

“Independents are swing voters or else they wouldn’t choose to be unenrolled” (unenrolled refers to the status of the independents, meaning they can vote for the party of their choice in primaries).

Polling shows a consistent concern among independents nationally and locally. They oppose rabid, uncontrollable spending and one party control. They don’t like the idea that we’re charging our future to the US credit card and that Democrats hold the keys to the castles.

As a voting block, Independents prove that audiences aren’t monolithic. They’re pragmatic and solutions oriented. They’re turned off by overly politicized messages. They gather information differently, generally listening to the loudest voice in the cafeteria (Exhibit A: Tea Party protest footage).

As S.A. Miller writes in The Washington Times, “Democratic Party leaders were slow to recognize the spread of the anti-government tea party sentiment to a Democratic stronghold like Massachusetts, in a race that was once projected to be a cakewalk for Mrs. Coakley.”

Slow to recognize it? Democrats downright discounted and criticized the legitimacy and power of this growing movement. That arrogance is now their Achilles heel.

If Brown is able to pull off a win it’ll be a jaw-dropper and a crushing blow to the left. Not only will Brown serve as the 41^st vote in the Senate, allowing Republicans to block every legislative attempt by Democrats going forward, he’ll also show that even the most solid Democratic seats and strongholds are vulnerable because of the bad behavior of their party. Even if Brown comes close – within a few points – it spells bad news and will serve as an indication of what’s to come politically in the 2010 midterms.

Republicans should be paying attention to Brown’s strategy and message – and how Independents turn out and why. And Democrats? Well, they should be very afraid.

Obama, One Year Later, the Incredible Shrinking Obama

2010-01-14T10:03:00-05:00

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:

Is Obama Uncomfortable Handling Terrorism?

2010-01-08T11:11:00-05:00

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?

To Keep U.S. Safe Obama Must Play Offense and Defense

2010-01-07T09:46:00-05:00

President Obama approached the podium on Tuesday to let the nation know he returned from vacation and finally convened his security team for answers on how a man wearing a smoldering diaper almost blew up hundreds of people on Christmas Day. Obama stood at the podium, reading formulaically, and with a righteous indignation delivered a striking rebuke toward our intelligence community.

What did he expect?

While he's been apprehensive about acknowledging the current jihad, or holy war, against us, he's been waging his own on the U.S. intelligence community to appease his leftist base.

Read more here:

GOP Must Keep the Heat on Homeland Security

2010-01-05T10:52:00-05:00

The Obama administration has been fiercely on the defense since the Christmas Day bomber's botched attempt to blow up an airplane with his explosives-covered thighs. The administration is operating in campaign mode - issuing statements, messaging through press releases and reactively hitting the airwaves while the President birdies and bogeys his way to the bottom of things.

The administration has also been trying to deflect and shift blame - a notorious campaign move - by hammering the GOP for playing politics in the hopes that it will scare off discord. But blaming former President George W. Bush will only make the Obama administration appear devoid of answers.

As Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) went after President Obama for his silence in the days that followed the attack, Democrats were pointing out that Bush had waited as long, if not longer, after the 2001 shoe bombing. As though that's supposed to comfort anyone now.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was busy warning Washington against politicizing the attack. "This should not be a tug of war between the two political parties," he said.

Translation: We screwed up. Stop pointing it out. Please.

Read more here

Would Obama Still Give Himself a B+?

2009-12-29T23:27:00-05:00

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.

This holiday season, let's count our many American blessings

2009-12-26T12:17:00-05:00

As we celebrate Christmas and approach the end of 2009, current polling shows that an overwhelmingly frustrated majority of Americans believe that the nation is on the wrong track. But this holiday season, notwithstanding the misdirection and dysfunction in Washington and beyond, we're still blessed to live in the greatest country in the world. There are many reasons to give thanks.

Read more here:

The spoiled millennials are about to get served a big slice of humble pie

2009-12-17T09:29:00-05:00

Out of the Great Depression came "The Greatest Generation" - a fitting name for those most affected by the period because of their ability to weather the era and its wartime duty. Baby boomers, Generation X and Generation Y followed.

The next group, born between 1980 and 2001, is larger than the baby boomers - 92 million vs. 78 million.

They are the Millennial Generation, and they better hold on to something heavy.

The current recession - the most serious economic hole our country has faced since World War II - will test the millennials' mettle. They are, after all, a group that is overwhelmingly coddled, cocky and spoiled.

And they are about to be humbled.

Read more here

The Senate Healthcare Bill is Not on My Christmas List

2009-12-16T10:36:00-05:00

These days, the status and the support for the Senate health care bill seems to change by the hour. Over the weekend, Senator Joseph Lieberman said he couldn’t support the bill in its current form because of the expansion of Medicare through the buy-in compromise and the public option. And this week, amid much pressure and media attention, he’s sticking to his guns.

With other moderate Democrats vacillating on their votes as poll numbers continue to slip for support of this bill to all-time lows, can Harry Reid and Senate Democrats get this done by the arbitrary timeline of Christmas?

It’s likely something will get done, but questions about who, what, when and how still remain. Right now Senate Democrats are struggling to find the 60 votes they need to block a filibuster from Republicans who say the Democrat's proposed health care plan is too expensive and too bureaucratic--ironically, the main reasons Democrats argued we needed this plan in the first place.

What's the rush?

Senate Majority Leader Reid and his counterparts need to pass this bill because the longer they wait, the more likely its chances of dying on the vine become plausible. Plus, the American people want to see Washington focused on jobs -- not health care. The longer they spend talking about this (and it's been a while), the more disillusioned Democrats will look, and the more frustrated the voters will get (here’s the kicker) in an ELECTION year.

Moderates like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Lieberman might not be Reid's only problem. In a shocking twist, liberals are hearing the pragmatic opposition make threats and some are now suddenly starting to sing off the same sheet music as Republicans in a push to scrap the entire thing. It’s looking like some liberal Democrats might defect if the bill becomes watered down and stripped of its most questionable portions.

According to Greg Sargent of The Plum Line Blog, Howard Dean, de-facto leader of the progressive movement, in an interview "said the removal of the Medicare buy-in made the bill not worth supporting, and urged Dem leaders to start over with the process of reconciliation in the interview."

For the first time, I actually agree with Dean.

In the words of Dean, himself: “Yeeeeooooow!”

If liberals like Howard Dean and Obama-replacement Illinois Senator Roland Burris are poised to bail on a bill without a public option, how can Reid herd these cats?

To their credit, Republicans are fighting back, and hard. They are smartly messaging this as Democrats wanting to do this for themselves and Obama for his own lasting legacy.

On "60 Minutes" this past Sunday, Obama noted that though many have tried to pass health reform in his party, they’ve all failed, but that he would be the one to get it done.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spelled it out perfectly on Tuesday:

“The supporters of this bill seem to think this is about them, about their legacies. This isn’t about them. This is about the American people. This is not about making history. This about doing the right thing for ever single American’s health care. And Americans have a message: Higher premiums, higher taxes, and higher health care costs are not what they signed up for. This is not what they were promised. This is not reform. Yes: Doing nothing is not an option. But making current problems worse is worse.”

Stay tuned. The standoff on health care reform is taking place right before our eyes. More and more, it’s looking like the gift that the left wants to give the American people for Christmas – the one that most of us don’t want – won’t end up under the tree. Sounds like a Merry Christmas to me.

Konstantinos A. Tantaros 1944-2009

2009-12-14T12:27:00-05:00

Eulogy of Konstantinos A. Tantaros

Delivered by Andrea Kostantina Tantaros

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Cathedral

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

December 10, 2009

* * *

I looked up the synonyms for the word "extraordinary" in a thesaurus, but none of them was in any way sufficient to accurately describe the true measure of Konstantinos “Harry” Tantaros, as a businessman, as a father, as a grandfather, as a husband, as a brother, as a friend to so many of you, and, finally, as the relentless force of nature, who swept into all of our lives and that has now left all of us much too soon.

I’m uncertain that I can accurately capture the full measure of our personal sense of grief and overwhelming sense of loss within the family. There are no words for that.

Nor can I do full justice to his struggles, by adequately describing the challenges and sacrifices that he made during his seven decades' journey on earth.

A description cannot convey how completely organic was his sense of identity and the larger-than-life personality that always filled and uplifted every room he ever entered.

He also projected an overwhelming assuredness about anything and everything to do with the business of getting on in life. His certitude never wavered, no matter the challenge.

When most people would have folded, he pressed on because he optimistically believed that he’d triumph through hard work.

That tendency to accept a challenge and run a risk, was enhanced by the decisive way that he made decisions – in business, and in every other sphere of life.

It was that determination and decisiveness which served him well on a stormy night in the Adriatic Sea, when his ship foundered and went down.

Harry’s born optimism and passion for life willed his 13-year-old body to swim through the long hours of darkness to finally reach shore, on a night when all the others drowned.

It was that acceptance of risk and hunger for opportunity and adventure that prompted him to, so confidently, leave behind his tiny village of Paleros, Greece at the age of 15, to serve aboard a merchant marine vessel, transporting oil to locations across the globe.

He saw much of the world during his seafaring years, but eventually, he decided upon a new home.

He arrived in the United States with only $30 in his pocket, but his spirit soared at the opportunities available here. He started at the bottom and never doubted for a day that he would eventually succeed. After all, if he could battle Poseidon and win, he believed that he could overcome anything.

His life then was long hours working in a restaurant for extended family for no pay.

But his optimism sustained him and helped him to persevere when times were so tough.

You ask, “How bad was it?”

It was this bad: He had nowhere to live. And he was so desperate to succeed, at any price that he set up shop in a cardboard box, down in a diner’s boiler room. But he wasn’t discouraged – frustrated, maybe, but not discouraged.

It was this bad. He once tried to wash his underwear in a bucket back in the kitchen, but, unfamiliar with the right ratio, he disproportionately used far more bleach than water.

After a long soak, when he finally lifted the trunks from the bucket, only the elastic waistband remained.

He looked up and exclaimed: “God, how poor can I be? I don’t even have underwear.” It didn’t matter. He had his mind made up and he knew his dream.

Despite the temporary discomforts he faced, he was always happy to be here and grateful for an opportunity to succeed in America.

We’ll never forget Harry’s decisiveness. And we’ll always know in the decades to come, know how to respond to adversity simply by asking, “What would Dad do in this situation?” Because we know intuitively exactly which road he’d take.

Well, maybe not exactly. Some of the things Harry did no one could have anticipated.

The midnight-shift cook at the Pied Piper diner, for one, didn’t expect to meet Harry after midnight.

He had been throwing out the potatoes when no one was looking, so that he wouldn’t have to peel them.

He never expected to find my father waiting for him inside the dumpster on that cold January night, when dad jumped out and caught the cook right in the act.

That story, and so many others, will keep us laughing for decades when we think of his quick wit and unique delivery.

This exceptional sense of humor, as expressed through his comments and constructive criticism—often unsolicited—made the pill of tough love easier to swallow.

Granted, given his manner of expression, his love was less likely to be delivered to you in a figurative Tiffany’s box than it was dumped in your lap with a back-hoe, but that, occasionally, rough and colorful means of transmittal certainly didn’t diminish the depth of his feelings for people.

He delighted at the chance to help someone. He always remembered the words of his father. My grandfather’s directive, was if you can do good for someone, do it.

My father always took that suggestion to heart.

His acts of generosity are too numerous to list, but I'd like to share one, in particular, with you.

When a family in the Greek community was facing foreclosure on their home, and did not have a car, Harry reached out to them.

He gave them my mom’s car, gave the dad a job in one of his restaurants, and then spent days to help train him in every aspect of the operation from dishwashing to cooking.

Eventually, he placed them in one of his fully staffed and operable restaurants, so that they could get back on their feet. That was Harry. He’s helped many more families put bread on their table.

His heart was just as big as his personality, his drive and intolerance for mediocrity, as evident as his work ethic. He would never hire anyone for a job that he could do himself, or that he could outsource to one of his children. For this, I am truly grateful.

He was fiercely loyal and pushed his kids to work as hard as he did, for he knew that if he could build our endurance, we would never go hungry.

He had the natural ability to make anyone feel comfortable, unless of course, they were trying to date my sister or me.

He reminded us how rich, full, meaningful and good one life can be by finding constant delight in the little things . . . like professional cheerleaders.

He had strong views about everything, from what piece of land would make the best location for his next restaurant, to why earrings don’t belong on men.

After meeting my mom in a diner in New Jersey, he decided to pursue opportunity in Pennsylvania. He opened the Park Manor Diner with only $38.

He came home excited after its first day of operation. When he returned to the motel where they were staying, he couldn't contain himself because he'd multiplied his initial investment and doubled what he had been making prior.

“We’re rich!” he celebrated. But my mom was sad. She missed her family, and felt lonely with a young baby and another on the way.

My dad insisted they keep going.

And keep going he did.

Though my father worked long enough and hard enough to realize many accomplishments, his true appetite was always for the actual act of succeeding, rather than the trappings of success, which I don’t believe he gave a fig about.

And I can surely tell you that he never found fulfillment in material things, and he never pursued them in the aspirational way that some people pine for them.

His particular brand of magic didn’t depend on material possessions to generate, no; Harry’s innate personality was plenty.

He was the toughest boss I’ll ever have and one of the strongest personalities that one could ever meet and, as long as I knew him, you never got the sense that he had any wish to be anyone other than who he was. This comfort in his own skin is what underpinned all his other wonderful attributes.

Harry appreciated excellence in others, too. He always taught us to appreciate the skills and experience that professionals had earned, be they lawyers, doctors or judges.

Harry encouraged us to honor the sacrifices that others had made to pursue excellence.

Harry said "steel sharpens steel" and he encouraged us to associate ourselves with those who had earned respect.

He wasn’t afraid to tell people, even men, that he loved them, and he wasn’t afraid of dying. He just wasn’t ready to go yet, and leave his family: his soul mate in life and business – his wife, Barbara, his four children, and his two young grandsons, the apples of his eye.

When he was still a little boy, he once saw a U.S. Navy ship, docked in the bay of his town. When he first saw the stars and stripes on its flag, he thought that it was the most beautiful flag in the world, and that one day he would go there because of its promise.

As we remember him today, a flag is flying in his honor over the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, DC.

A fitting tribute, for a man who loved this country with a passion seldom seen by most that were born here.

You could often hear my dad exclaim with a sparkle in his eye, “What a country,” when acknowledging his many blessings.

Today we say, "Thank You" for the way he touched our lives, and made them exponentially better, even though God decided he was needed up above.

…Something tells me heaven will now be watching a lot more Fox News.

I feel privileged and humbled by my father’s example. It's both inspirational and demanding. He was the most, extraordinary man ever I have ever met - or, that I will ever meet.

I’m simply lucky to be his daughter.

Just as he used to say: "What a country" . . . What a man . . . What a legacy.

# # #

Obama's Hits and Misses of 2009

2009-12-11T11:05:00-05:00

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.

Obama's Jobs Summit is a Feast of Folly

2009-12-03T13:12:00-05:00

Politicians constantly need to create the impression that they're actually getting paid to do something. President Obama is no different. Today, the White House will host a Jobs Summit featuring 100-plus business leaders, union chiefs, academics, mayors and representatives of nonprofit groups.

Obama's goal is to show he's serious about taking action on the backsliding economy and to convince the electorate that public activity means real policy action.

I'll have to crash Obama's party, because summits are giant publicity stunts where loads of taxpayer money is spent on fancy backdrops, flower arrangements and so much glad-handing and back-slapping that the participants leave with calluses and whiplash.

The timing is twofold, and painfully transparent: Hosting a high-profile gathering will allow the White House to portray an engaged Obama at a time when polls show the public believes his domestic agenda is in a hole. More importantly, the summit gives Obama a desperately needed distraction - especially during the holidays when the unemployed are acutely aware of their situation...

For more click here.

Obama's Healthcare Endgame

2009-12-02T15:49:09-05:00

Debate on the controversial Senate health care bill has begun and almost everyone has an opinion. Well, not everyone. Ironically, the administration has yet to go public with its views on what is arguably its most controversial principle in the plan: the public option. It’s a deal breaker for many Democrats in the middle – and even some on the left – and will ignite a civil war in the Senate for the left wing, as I’ve repeatedly predicted.

For months, administration officials have perpetuated the myth that a public option may be best hope when it comes to lowering costs and spurring competition among insurers. However, they’ve declined to say that a public option is a "must-have" piece of the legislation.

Budget Director Peter Orszag held a conference call with reporters last week to discuss what he referred to as the “four pillars” of a fiscally responsible health care reform bill – but the public option wasn’t even mentioned.

Why the crickets? Because there’s a good chance that’s it’s dead (we can only hope) and President Obama doesn’t want to marry himself to a losing component of the Senate's overhaul. But if it does pass, he’ll be the first to spike the football. Despite their suspicious silence, we know which team he's really on.

He has sent Senate leaders in to do his dirty work. Amid all this talk that a public option will spark competition, the end game is a single payer system and Obama, and the far left, know it.

“There is a transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out,” Obama has said, referring to the possibility of eliminating employer insurance plans entirely.

This means that when they say you can keep your insurance if you like it, you really can’t. Many small business owners will be saddled with such high costs that they’ll force their employees into the government plan.

Senators Joe Lieberman (I) and Blanche Lincoln (D) are opposed to the public option and their votes are needed for passage. Senators Mary Landrieu (D) and Olympia Snowe (R) favor a trigger option.

Keep your eyes peeled for a compromise, but hope that it doesn’t involve the public option or the trigger. Remember the thing about triggers – if they don’t shoot you now, they’ll shoot you later.

Perhaps most ironic, is that the same week that the Senate begins debate on a costly health care restructuring, Obama will also deliver a prime time address to the nation on Tuesday outlining his plan for Afghanistan -- a strategy that will likely mean spending billions more dollars. Watch the liberals howl about cost when it comes to rooting out the Taliban and preventing another attack on American soil, but adding trillions to the national credit card for a government run health care plan? Hey, it's an investment, no matter how unhealthy it is for our fiscal state. -- Oh, the irony.

What could be healthier than the safety of our nation?

Palin Book Tour Should Be Her Primary

2009-11-17T07:33:00-05:00

As Sarah Palin embarks on her much anticipated book tour she needs to needs to think about more than just settling scores and image rehabilitation, she needs to get serious. That means, during her promotion tour kicking off this week, she needs to discuss more than moose chili and teen pregnancy. With a leadership vacuum in the GOP more evident than ever, rising to the top and staying in the spotlight is shrewd, but only if she’s ready to talk substance.

From a political perspective, Palin is deeply threatening to the left. Classist, petit syrah swilling liberals loathe the thought of being governed by a backwater governor with five kids and a beehive. Leftist women hate her because she’s attractive and should be busy burning her bra for abortion rights (she’s also successful in her personal life, which often times aggravates liberal females and irritates certain gray—I mean, strawberry haired print columnists). Political strategists fear her because she could effectively help move the traditionally Democratic blue collar vote to the right. Think about it: who could be more unsuccessful in their outreach to this demographic: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin? Palin also has the ability to make the left appear so vile, so rude, and so disgusting by just being herself. She gets them to use the most egregious of insults and acts as a mirror to their soul whenever she appears by getting them to act so appallingly.

While these realities are potent, they aren’t the sole ingredients for a successful candidacy. They are personal, not presidential. It’s dangerous to build a cult of personality without real policy chops, no matter which side of the aisle. Just look at Barack Obama. He won because of his persona. When it comes to actually governing and making the tough policy decisions required for the job, he appears weak, winded and confused. His words, his fancy backdrops and his cultish iconography can't save him now.

The best preparation for a political candidacy is a primary. This book tour should be Palin's primary.

Politics is a game of addition. You add supporters by not just talking to head nodders, but also by winning converts. With the economy still in a chokehold and Obama’s approval rating in a freefall, Palin has an opportunity to offer creative and solid solutions our many problems. This would help her capture the imagination of a larger portion of the electorate -- not just conservatives. For most independents and moderates, controlling spending is priority number one. She could own this issue by addressing it head on during her book tour and offer a sharp contrast to the fiscal gluttony of the current administration.

In her book, Palin seeks to set the record straight when it comes to former McCain staffers who muzzled her. Many times during the campaign I argued that her handlers were operating with an outdated playbook and bunker mentality that did nothing to capitalize on her strengths, so it’s important for her to bring clarity to these misconceptions.

But once this media blitz ends, so must the soap opera. Many of these operatives view campaigns as a money making industry. They’re looking to hook their claws into other candidates in the 2012 election that's why they continue to cut her down by using a very willing liberal media looking for any excuse to assist when it comes to Republican Party infighting. She shouldn’t take the bait. She needs to ignore them and focus on moving forward. Palin is far more important and effective than they will ever be. She must act like it.

The media will be following her every move on her campaign – uh, I mean book tour across America. She should use these venues to differentiate and define herself from the rest of the bunch but also offer creative and solid solutions to the issues that ail us. With conviction, strong sense of self and passion like the GOP hasn’t seen in decades, she needs to outline what she’d do about Afghanistan, her plan to lower health care and energy costs and keep us safe at home by getting heady. Enough about death panels, what would she do?

I can understand Palin’s urge to travel to the pockets of America where people like her. But rising to the top requires facing your enemies head on. That means Sunday morning talk shows and an appearance on "60 Minutes." If the Katie Couric interviews were just a one time fluke then prove it. It’s better to deal with the tough questions now than months before a presidential primary.

One of two things is going to happen if she pursues this strategy:

She’s going to come through like Maggie Thatcher—always focused on the future, unflappable and astute. Or she’s going to come through like Geraldine Ferraro, consistently talking about the past and what could have been. If she’s not ready for a pre-primary, then she needs to rethink her priorities and take more time to prepare for that next step.

It’s gut check time. Though she says that the White House isn’t on her radar, if Sarah Palin is going to emerge as any kind of transformational leader she needs to articulate why she wants to run for higher office without actually saying it, and display why she belongs there. The journey begins today.

Out Foxed: Anita Dunn and the Obama White House

2009-11-10T16:58:00-05:00

The White House just lost its chief media strategist and Fox News just lost its best P.R. tool. Anita Dunn, the outspoken and controversial communications aide to President Obama has announced today that she’ll be leaving her post; her deputy, Dan Pfeiffer is to replace her. Though Dunn’s title was communications director, at times, “Fox News Basher” seemed more appropriate as she seemingly and bizarrely began to publicly wage war on the network roughly a month ago.

Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news,” Dunn snapped, which ignited the jihad on Fox News’ journalism.

When asked further to elaborate, Dunn expanded:

“If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest story, the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN, when the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”

It was comments like these that had many Democrats gripping their foreheads. They saw the move as misguided and questioned the administration’s decision to launch an ideological crusade against a thriving cable news channel.

Dunn later drew even more ire when she praised the Chinese dictator Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers:

“…Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?"

So that's what Mao was thinking when he killed 50 to 70 million of his own people in political purges?? Why not?!

Typically, White House politicos quote the words of our forefathers from Lincoln to Washington, not communist murderers.

Liberal groups are already spinning Dunn’s announcement, insisting that her role as communications director “was always meant to be temporary.”

Was Van Jones was just keeping someone’s seat warm, too?

And if she was expected to serve as an interim attack dog, then the end goal seemed to be use her as a paper tiger in an attempt to demonize and discredit Fox News, while at the same time, clearly define an enemy. If this was the strategy, it was a very bad one that very definitively failed.

The Dunn-led White House attacks on Fox have been a huge boon for the news channel, propelling the networks’ already sky-high ratings even higher with a 9 percent uptick in the three weeks following the dust up, according to Nielsen Co., the leading tracker of television viewership.

Perhaps Dunn’s early departure is a signal that Democrats are waking up to the fact that after Tuesday’s election results, the public views the troubled economy, out of control federal spending and the White House's failure to keep unemployment below 8 percent paramount to an intellectual exercise (though gauging from their maniacal focus on health care and climate change, that’s unlikely).

With radical, loose cannons like Dunn and Jones gone from the Obama team, the real question is how many more like them are hiding in the White House woodwork?

Four Things We Learned About NY-23

2009-11-04T10:28:29-05:00

After weeks of ups and downs and unknowns in the special election for the 23rd congressional district of New York with conservative candidate Doug Hoffman losing to Democrat Bill Owens (one that which played out much like a political telanovela) analysts can agree on one truth: we love drama.

This race was reality television at its best with all the necessary ingredients: an underdog (Hoffman), a train wreck (Scozzafava), celebrity influence (Palin) and an attentive national media. And like many reality shows, after you've watched it you feel like you learned almost nothing.

So what did we learn about NY 23 besides its dizzying storyline?

1. We learned that the Republican Party establishment in Washington is not losing its influence; it simply backed a bad candidate in Scozzafava -- someone it never initially selected, nominated or wholeheartedly endorsed. Sometimes, candidates are just plain weak (see the Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia governor's races) and in places like New York where third party candidates are common, a door is opened for someone outside the norm.

2. We learned that Sarah Palin doesn't just "go rogue" herself; she helps others do the same. Palin's an earned media machine. She was able to help bring the battle to the national stage (Heck, the woman could get the national press corps to focus on a potato sack race competition). Even those who think the former Alaska governor is political poison, at the very least, have to admit her endorsement didn't hurt Hoffman and didn't help Scozzafava. The real question: is this a trend...for her? If Sarah Palin has any hopes of winning a national office she can't run around endorsing unwinnable candidates. She'll lose her political mojo and be labeled a spoiler.

3. From the NY 23 race we also learned that this is not the "beginning" of a GOP civil war. For decades moderates and conservatives have faced each other in primaries, but when faux Republicans like Scozzafava who espouse liberal beliefs run for higher office they run the risk of getting challenged, clipped or even defeated by someone from the right, or often helping the guy on the left.

4. We learned that despite all the craziness, the voters -- not the pundits, polls or the politicians -- make the final call. But in the case of NY 23, maybe the most telling takeaway is the only absolute: we love a good story.

Obama's Ol' Boys Club Keeping Women Out?

2009-10-29T15:38:37-05:00

Apparently, the writers at the New York Times don’t read the front page of their own newspaper. Rather than delve into the hard hitting questions facing the nation such as what to do about the increasing instability in Afghanistan, the strategy to repair a still lackluster economy or how much debt we really are poised to pass onto future generations, one Times journo decided to explore the real hand-wringer of the day that’s keeping Americans awake at night: is there too much testosterone in the White House??

The article was sparked by recent outrage from women’s groups (and apparently one very isolated, out of touch, culturally delusional Times employee) over an all-male basketball game hosted by the President. The author writes about how Obama is an “unabashed First Guy’s Guy” who boasts “encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops” (as if to imply that an impressive aptitude in sports trivia is somehow the measure of a man and that George Bush and Bill Clinton were somehow Presidential girlie men who, if spontaneously interrupted, could be caught painting their toe nails while listening to old Liza records).

It continues:

“The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.”

What impression? And who exactly is the President battling this faux “impression” against besides The National Organization for Women (NOW) who called basketball game “troubling”?

Isn’t the real concern that the President recoils when it comes to making any big decision?

As someone who is frequently critical of the President, a female, and a conservative, insinuating that a handicap of his is the fictional perception that he is operating an exclusive chest bumping, fraternity like good ol' boys club is mindboggling, even to me.

Obama has given women notable placement in his administration. While militant maniacs seek to destroy us abroad, Hillary Clinton is our Secretary of State and Susan Rice is a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor. As we face a global pandemic Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security Secretary, are faced with how to keep citizens safe. From Valerie Jarrett to his wife Michelle, Obama has elevated females to positions of power seeking their leadership on some of the most serious and sensitive of issues.

Even the White House’s official Fox News basher, Anita Dunn, has been given a megaphone with which to whine (a bizarre one, but a megaphone nonetheless). Though I disagree with these women ideologically, it’s indisputable that they are, in fact, women.

Perhaps most importantly while these females try to do their important jobs, having a campaign for affirmative action in the White House in the midst of all the other problems we face seems misguided. When I look at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue I don’t see Greek letters on the front and a keg in the back. I see a dark cloud overtop.

With unemployment on the brink of hitting 10 percent, escalating violence in the Middle East, and a ballooning national debt, the media should be focused on the President’s ability to put points on the only board that matters using the team he surrounds himself with off the courts.

Instead, the "Gray Lady" and those on ABC’s The View reliably and unsurprisingly lambasted the President for not letting Hillary suit up that day. Elizabeth Hassleback insinuated that if Obama’s daughters looked out the window and saw an all male basketball game, the President had somehow failed them as a father.

“He presents himself as a feminist, so the hypocrisy is glaring,” insisted Joy Behar.

Girlfriends: how about discussing contradictions that count, such as Obama campaigning on balanced budgets but now breaking the bank? Or his crafting of ethics laws to keep lobbyists out of government but then changing course? Or his waffling on sending more troops to wage a war that he called a necessity?

It’s insulting to females everywhere to deduce that because our gender wasn’t represent to shoot three pointers that day, the President is somehow a misogynist “towel snapper,” who puts us at a disadvantage, and is corrupting his children.

These types of temper tantrums undermine women, distract and reverse decades of progress. As long as women and men view every issue through a prism of gender, females end up marginalized. Women have made tremendous progress. We should embrace it, not seek to disprove it. Real women don’t complain or pout, we play ball, whether the President invites us or not.

5 Things to Watch as We Get Closer to Healthcare Reform

2009-10-13T15:14:00-05:00

The Senate Finance Committee is voting on health care today. After five months of vigorous and often acerbic debate, lawmakers in Congress are still managing to get it wrong. Not only that, they're leaving many concerns unaddressed and lots of problems unresolved. Here’s what you need to know as we watch Congress embark on a roller coaster ride that will last for weeks:

#1. Questions Still Remain -- What About Taxes?

Many lawmakers remain unconvinced that most of the plans that Congress will mandate will be affordable. The Senate and the House are also at odds on how to pay for the legislation, with the Senate preferring a tax on high-value insurance policies as the primary source of revenue, and House leaders favoring a surcharge on millionaires. Democrats on the far left want to impose fines on companies that do not provide coverage to their employees and middle of the road Democrats favoring a more toned down model.

#2. This Is Just the Beginning

Keep in mind that despite the hype over today’s Finance Committee hearing, the Baucus bill is not the final product. After the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will summon both Senators Baucus and Dodd -- the author of another piece of legislation that moved through the Senate Health Committee in July -- to his office discuss options about how to reach a compromise.

#3. Keep Your Eye On These Lawmakers

Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and liberal Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (Maine) are the two women to watch. It’s likely they will vote for the Baucus bill, and when they do it will send a message that the principles included in the bill will likely be the ones that Democrats will be forced to defend in the 2010 midterm elections to their constituents. With 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee, Baucus can only afford to lose one member of his party if Republicans vote to block his bill.

#4. Speaker Pelosi's Role

Typically the House votes first on legislation and then sends a bill to the Senate. But this time it was different. The House needed to go second because it was unlikely that House moderates and Blue Dog Democrats would cast their vote on controversial legislation that might never make it through the Senate, let alone become law.

There’s no question Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted to go first. Her liberal penchant is for the House to lead (in other words, for her to lead the charge) and set the marker by which every piece of policy is judged going forward. But the legislative reality was different. The Speaker simply didn’t have the votes. And she decided early on in the health care fight to cut the vote pool in half by making this a partisan bill, winnable only with Democratic votes (we knew that was the endgame at the beginning, but she sure went there quickly).

She still believes this is a "message win" for her party. That’s why she’s gone gangbusters. Watch her misstep on the public option since she’s so blind to public opinion on this point in particular.

#5. Plenty of Doubts Persist

Despite a public outcry for smart health care reform and less government control, the bill in consideration still reflects a move to give the government more control of one sixth of our economy and our health care decisions, along with original concerns like ballooning costs, mandates and subsidies. And guess what else awaits? Every bill put forth on health care would result in higher taxes.

While there is a manufactured sense of extreme urgency to get something done, it’s crucial that our lawmakers in both houses get it done correctly. Keep in mind that even if the Baucus bill passes the Finance Committee today, the fight is far from over, and Congress is still far from getting it right.

Andrea Tantaros is the former Press Secretary to House Republican Leadership and a FoxNews.com contributor. Follow her on Twitter @AndreaTantaros.

Pelosi's Sinking in the Swamp

2009-10-09T09:46:00-05:00

Upon assuming her Speakership, Nancy Pelosi assured Americans she would “drain the swamp” and still to this day boasts of that notion as an accomplishment. Sadly, the swamp is winning.

In perhaps the most appalling display of “cronyism,” a word Pelosi herself used almost incessantly when Republicans were in power, she has allowed her good friend and political ally, Charlie Rangel to retain his powerful post as the Ways and Means Committee Chairman, despite calls for him to step down on both sides of the aisle and a litany of unethical transgressions, including:

- Evading taxes on $1.3 million in income derived from multiple properties and failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars of assets and income.

- Accusations of taking a $1 million contribution to the Rangel Center at City College from a wealthy businessman who later got a lucrative tax break for his company.

-Accepting a Citigroup-funded trip to the Caribbean in November 2008, when the bank was bleeding the bailout funds dry.

- Unreported rental income from a vacation villa in the Dominican Republic that Rangel failed to acknowledge when filling out financial disclosure forms.

Instead of applying the same guidelines on impropriety that she did for the GOP, Pelosi has largely remained mum, opting instead to duck, deny, and ignore the gravity of the situation in front of her. Not surprising as this isn’t the first instance of her favoritism.

She’s stuck by her closest congressional cohort, John Murtha, who now faces an investigation for misdeeds including no-bid contracts awarded to a nephew’s company and $38.1 million in earmarked appropriations for clients of the PMA Group, which employ former Murtha staff members and contributed to his campaign.

When asked about attempts to strengthen congressional standards, the Pennslyvania Democrat responded that he thinks it's “crap.” Apparently his buddy Pelosi agrees.

Despite finding photos of $90,000 in cash tucked inside containers of pie crust and Boca Burger from an FBI raid of Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson’s house, Pelosi tried to gift him (ironically) with a Homeland Security committee assignment. He would later be convicted of 11 counts of racketeering and bribery.

Someone call Joe the Plumber. The drain on the swamp is awfully clogged.

Some Democrats agree. Two of her members broke with ranks and voted against Mr. Rangel, a sign that the Speaker will soon have to answer for her actions, or lack thereof. Many are calling for him to resign, realizing that not only is this hypocrisy in its most audacious form, but also that Republicans will make hay of this issue until the leadership on the left, mainly Pelosi, call for him to step down.

When the ultra liberal New York Times editorial page wags its finger in disgust for one of their own and a hometown son, one can measure the severity of this mistake. The NYT writes:

“It is time for Democrats in Congress — who once justifiably complained about the corruption of the Republican majority — to demonstrate to Americans that someone in that august body has ethical standards.

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi, maintaining her tunnel vision on behalf of a powerful colleague, led the majority to defeat the Republicans’ latest call to depose the New York lawmaker. She does the nation no favor.”

But many still refuse to see what damage it is doing to their credibility because he’s “a likeable guy.” Mark Foley was also a likeable guy. But he had to go. More obviously, a chilly demeanor isn’t the charge.

Mr. Rangel is the big cheese when it comes to writing federal legislation that impacts our tax code. To not only shield a member of her caucus as political payback for Rangel’s past support of Pelosi -- but also reward that member -- displays that she is willing to risk losing her entire caucus, and what’s left of her almost non-existent credibility, for the sake of a few. That’s not just bad politics. That’s bad judgement.

If she hopes to survive a bloody battle in 2010, one where her own words and actions will be used against her, she must insist Rangel resign immediately.

To The New York Times who concluded their scathing rebuke by assuring that the protection of Mr. Rangel as chairman “is a grave misstep” that can only hand the ethics issue back to Pelosi’s political opponents, I would argue that it’s far too late. The issue has already been returned to Republicans. We can only hope control of the U.S. House is next.

Why Did He Do It?

2009-10-02T00:00:00-05:00

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.