Andrea Tantaros

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

2011-02-10T00:00:00-04:00

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?

2011-01-13T12:12:00-04:00

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

2011-01-06T00:00:00-04:00

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

Beware the coming imperial President

2010-10-24T00:00:00-04:00

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

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

2010-09-30T00:00:00-04:00

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

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

2010-07-29T19:35:00-04:00

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

Gulf crisis has Obama sinking

2010-07-15T00:00:00-04:00

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:

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

2010-06-24T00:00:00-04:00

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.

Obama rant on technology straight out of stone age

2010-05-13T11:11:00-04:00

President Obama, like any politician, has used speeches as a platform to take potshots at his enemies. We've heard him predictably rail against big business, bankers and Republicans like Dick Cheney but we weren't expecting him to diss technology in a commencement speech to Hampton University graduates on Sunday.

Obama made headlines when he referred to some digital gadgets as tools of "distraction" from what he sees as a larger goal of emancipation and empowerment:

"With iPods and iPads and XBoxes and PlayStations - none of which I know how to work - information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. It is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

Talk about a Google alert - and a totally off-base line of attack from our first Blackberry President, a man who millions flocked to in part because he was supposed to understand new interactive technologies far better than old John McCain did.

Wasn't it the new media ecology that empowered a generation to propel Obama into office? And weren't these tech tools key to that victory? Using the Internet, Obama was able to enlist a digital army of 13 million strong and mobilize them with the click of a mouse that sent messages to these tools. He used technology to push back on smears and was able to revolutionize campaign fund-raising forever, at one point pulling in more than $4 million via the Web in one day. (I suppose solicitations over iPads and iPhones for campaign donations don't count as one of these new media "pressures" when he's the one doing the pressuring.)

And wasn't it Obama who glorified the benefits of the Internet as a new paradigm of governing, giving citizens more transparency? During the presidential campaign, he promised to post online videos of previously closed-door meetings, databases on lobbying records, campaign finance filings and ethics reports; and a platform for the public to comment on bills he's about to sign. While he has yet to employ many of these methods, he's used WhiteHouse.gov to bring the government into the Web world, designing it with features and media messages including the President's weekly Web address that can be viewed on many of Steve Jobs' aforementioned and suddenly distractive digital diversions.

To his credit, Obama initially excited and impressed on both sides of the aisle with his technical acumen and appreciation. Now we're just confused. Is he the savvy, new media political pioneer or just another dusty, digitally illiterate elected? It's one thing to bemoan the perils of information addiction and another to broadside an XBox as an impediment to empowerment.

Read more here

Baier's Obama Interview Reveals the Mood of a Man Whose Presidency is on the Line

2010-03-19T17:17:28-04:00

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

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

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

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

Rules, schmooles, says the President.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for Obama to clean house

2010-02-23T15:52:00-04:00

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

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

2010-01-28T12:29:00-04:00

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.

Obama, One Year Later, the Incredible Shrinking Obama

2010-01-14T10:03:00-04:00

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.

Is Obama Uncomfortable Handling Terrorism?

2010-01-08T11:11:00-04:00

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?

Would Obama Still Give Himself a B+?

2009-12-29T23:27:00-04:00

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.

Obama's Hits and Misses of 2009

2009-12-11T11:05:00-04:00

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.

Why Did He Do It?

2009-10-02T00:00:00-04:00

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.

A First Day of School Message for Obama: Keep Out of the Classroom

2009-09-04T07:33:00-04:00

When I was in grade school, if I did a certain number of push-ups, pull-ups and performed the shuttle run in under 10 minutes I received a certificate from the Oval Office.

Apparently squat thrusts and jumping jacks aren’t good enough for Barack Obama. With a video address next week he’s instructing teachers nationwide to assign students a paper on how to "help the president."

Among the unprecedented activities the government initially suggested for prekindergarten to sixth-grade students (well, unprecedented except for North Korea and the former Soviet Union): that they "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."

Another task recommended for students immediately after listening to the speech: to engage in a discussion about what "the president wants us to do."

At least that’s what the first memo said.

What happened to Hamlet? Fractions, anyone?

The Administration had to quickly walk back those instructions for a more toned-down approach. Now they’ve moved away from what turned out to be a politically prickly idea and are merely insisting “Obama just wanted to tell the kids to stay in school!”

Good thinking. The drop out rate among third graders is really spiraling of control.

Obama’s had a rough summer and it’s reflected in his polls. This is, no doubt, an effort to help remediate his image, but also butt into the lives of our next generation. And he’s called in his base to help: Hollywood. Apparently when the going gets tough, the tough call…Ashton and Demi? A video has been cut entitled “I Pledge” and one school principal is taking heat for showing the footage at an assembly program. (To see the video visit FOXNews.com).

It features several celebrities designed to act as moral compasses for the kids. Names like Courtney Cox, Cameron Diaz – figures that many kids idolize – are featured pledging what they can to help the President. For instance, end world hunger, not give people "the finger" and uh, smile more.

Nothing says real sacrifice like a toothy grin.

The White House is crossing a very fine line with its video message to kids. It's one thing to talk about the President's duties; it's another to create a program that, by design, forces children to ponder his or her wonderfulness. Students should know who the President is and what his powers are – that’s called civics class – but they shouldn't be discussing what he wants them to do. It reeks of propaganda and a cult of personality taken to the extreme. It also sets a precedent. Will the commander-in-chief use this mechanism going forward to reach potential new voters to push his agenda?

Opening the door to the federal government getting involved in local schools equals politicization. It’s the parents’ job and the role of teachers to help set educational goals, not the Executive Branch of government. But Barack Obama, at his core, is a nanny state leftist, indoctrinated in the progressive radicalism that believes big government knows best.

From the stimulus to Cash for Clunkers to the bailouts, the Administration has screwed up enough in the last nine months; our kids won't be next. But maybe that's why he's speaking to them. With the American electorate skeptical of his policies, he needs to address people who really were born yesterday.

Follow me on Twitter @andreatantaros.

Obama Must Lose the Left or Lose Big

2009-09-02T15:42:14-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Cue record-scratching sound).

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

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

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

Obamacare: Bad for the President's Political Health

2009-07-23T13:33:00-04:00

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

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

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

Obama is just the opposite.

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

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

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

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

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

48,620 Miles Logged and Nothing to Show

2009-07-15T18:13:00-04:00

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

It's no surprise that the unseasoned and untested Frequent-Flier-In-Chief needs to get some ink in his passport, but the real question is, besides helping Obama brush up on his romance languages, what has he really accomplished overseas? The answer: not much.

At each summit, foreign leaders have been more interested in getting Obama's autograph than his thoughts on missile defense. When he's asked for cooperation from more troops in Afghanistan to help with Guantanamo detainees to climate change concessions, each time he's been rudely rebuffed. His speech in Cairo, intended to chart a new beginning, fell flat thanks to his amorphous, vague platitudes and pandering. The only thing that matters to Arab countries is how he handles the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Obama, unsurprisingly, said nothing new.

When it comes to dealing with the most rogue of leaders, he's been bullied. Chavez purposely bum-rushed him with an insulting piece of propaganda for a photo-op. Putin gave a cavalier speech on the Cold War, forcing Obama to once again make concessions when he should have defended, not only the West, but also an accurate portrait of history. But when he sat across from our friend, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, he couldn't even give the man eye contact.

He's even embarrassed the US by dropping the ball when it comes to proper protocol. He gifted Britain’s Prime Minister, arguably the longest and most valued ally of our nation, some DVD’s; he gave Her Majesty the Queen an iPod with a selection of his speeches. Gee, you bloody shouldn't have. Really. You shouldn't have. He might as well have given them an autographed sock he wore during inauguration.

Obama's mini study abroad adventures have cemented the notion that he's an international figure, but not an international leader. Bush may have been tough, but he was respected, and so was the United States. With all past Presidents, the ones who are limp and quick to concede our liabilities abroad weaken our standing and make us more vulnerable.

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

Obama: Putting the Ringing Red Phone Straight to Voicemail

2009-06-19T10:39:00-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, Big Spender

2009-05-13T22:21:00-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My next question: got inflation?

On Tax Day, More at Stake Than Money

2009-04-15T07:25:00-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Short Sell

2009-03-25T06:42:00-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five Reasons Obama Should Return His Book Advance

2009-03-20T13:14:00-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama: Obsessed With Infamy?

2009-03-06T07:44:00-04:00

There’s a saying: “You can never be too rich, too thin, or go too far too fast.” Our current President seems to subscribe to the latter. Being the first African American to be elected to the White House doesn’t appear to be good enough for Barack Obama. He's got to be ultra infamous, and that means going far—fast.

While many Presidents have laid out what they have believed to be "bold" policy plans for the future, it's typically a broad theme or two that echoes their campaign promises and is accepted as somewhat attainable. But Obama is making it his mission to address every issue this country faces by sounding the alarm of urgency to get his way. From greenhouse gas to healthcare to government contracts, he's made them all priorities. But are his initiatives really about us, or about his own obsession with infamy?

Obama says "this country can't afford to wait on healthcare." More like, this country can't AFFORD universal healthcare. However, if Obama were to completely socialize medicine he'd surely earn his place in the history books while simultaneously thumbing his nose at the Clintons. If he can shove his cap and trade program through he'd be hailed an environmental savior, out greening even Al Gore. He's gone after executive pay, proposed a budget that seeks to grow government, cripple investment, and impose a host of punitive wealth transfer programs turning us into Europe.

Many economists are editorializing that what he’s preaching isn’t even possible due to our country’s limited financial bandwidth. But Obama doesn’t seem to care. He is charging ahead and planning to charge all of his proposals on the country’s already maxed out credit card. Most puzzlingly, he is devoid of a plan to address the most pressing problem facing the nation: a credit crisis.

Is Obama’s pathological narcissism and pursuit for unparalleled notoriety driving our nation into the ground?

Many politicians are egomaniacs from Nixon to Clinton. Samuel Vaknin, Ph.D., and a known expert on pathology and narcissism writes:

“David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler; They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late.”

The personalized emblems, the presumptuous presidential seals before he won office, the cultish iconography, the desire to silence any kind of dissent among his detractors, all of these things point to a man who seems to be obsessively driven by his own self interest.

With each policy push and passing day that Wall Street suffers, we are seeing that with Obama, reality and fantasy are intertwined. Let’s hope the country wakes up in time, before his quest for greatness sacrifices the nation's best interests.

Obama's Budget Doublespeak

2009-03-05T12:39:14-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illusions of Grandeur

2009-03-02T07:49:00-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last Night

2009-02-25T08:33:00-04:00

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

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

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

And now the Republican response...siiiigh.

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

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