The End Of Barack Obama

20 01 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Democrat party hack and Bill Clinton sycophant, Lanny Davis, has the chutzpah to assert in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece: “We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party.”[2] Davis defends Clinton today as he did during the former president’s impeachment saga, despite the fact that Clinton was and is the equivalent of Tiger Woods morally.  Davis and his ilk are the problem, not the solution.  He and Obama chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, are birds of a feather.  They are the worst of the Democratic Party.

I began as a Democrat, yet I am proud to be an Independent today, as I have been for more than 20 years.  The ranks of Independents are growing dramatically with each election, as they abandon the Democratic Party.[3] It is people like Davis and Emanuel who have turned lots of us away from our former party.  He and his leftist Democrats do not represent us, and never did.  As Ronald Reagan said—who was a former Democrat too: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party.  The party left me.”[4]

Davis has the gall to say: “[W]e allowed the party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to morph into the party of George McGovern.”  This is hypocrisy at its lowest. The party of Clinton and Obama is the party of McGovern.  While I did not vote for McGovern—and I never voted for his opponent either, Richard M. Nixon, even though I hail from his home state of California[5]—at least McGovern is a decent and honorable person, and I respect him.  For Davis to defame him simply underscores what a low-life Davis is.

The U.S. Senate triumph of Scott Brown in Massachusetts marked the beginning of the end of Barack Obama as an American politician.  Assuming the elections of 2010 and 2012 follow suit, the president is at best a lame duck. With the demise of ObamaCare, he will simply wait for the end of his presidency in January 2013, and little more—like Lyndon Johnson did as the elections of 1968 approached.  Both Obama and Johnson share the common heritage of failed presidencies and unwinnable wars, in Vietnam and Afghanistan.[6]

The “Change We Can Believe In” is the end of the Obama presidency. He has lied to us repeatedly, and he has deceived us—like Johnson and Bill Clinton did—and it is time for him to go.  The handwriting is on the wall: the Obama presidency is unsalvageable.  Its far-Left tenets are not in step with mainstream America.  The root causes of this lie with the president’s character and his core beliefs.  He is a disciple of the far-Left; and Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. are truly his “soul brothers.”  He has lied to us about them too. What most Americans care about, and believe in, are an anathema to these people.

There is nothing positive that Obama has done since he assumed the presidency; and things are likely to get a whole lot worse before he leaves office.  It has been said: “Jimmy Carter may be heading to #2 on the [list of] all-time worst presidents in American history, thanks to ‘O.’” This is an understatement.  When history is written, Barack Obama may be hated more than George W. Bush has been by the Democrats, more than Bill and Hillary Clinton have been hated by the Republicans, more than Nixon was hated by the Democrats, and even more than Johnson was hated by a broad swath of the American electorate . . . and the list goes on and on.  Obama may emerge as the most hated president in history.

Read (or reread) his book, “Dreams from My Father.”  The president’s beliefs are set forth in his own words, which were written before political “handlers” filtered those words for public consumption. He has never denounced what he wrote.[7] He grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and he does not share traditional American values.  With the election of Scott Brown, and the earlier election victories of Robert F. McDonnell and Chris Christie to the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, the American people are saying no to Obama and the Democrats. Soon, it will be time to ride them out of town on a rail, politically.[8]

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (www.naegele.com).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles

[2] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013221708478134.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Davis’ comments can be best understood by recognizing that he has been a consistent shill for the Clintons.  In his article, he may be simply staking out Hillary’s position vis-à-vis Obama in the elections to come.

[3] See, e.g., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704561004575013411330904680.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

[4] See, e.g., http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-reagan,1,2107723,full.story

[5] In later years, I came to admire the former president immensely though, as he demonstrated his mastery of foreign policy and other issues, both in his books and speeches.

[6] While I believe in and admire Generals David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal, Afghanistan seems to be a morass politically and militarily.  Yet, I hope and pray that we can succeed in our efforts there, if for no other reason than the future of the courageous Afghan women.  See, e.g.http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/

[7] See Barack Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ and http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/

[8] Last but not least, having written what amounts to a political obituary of Barack Obama, I am mindful of the fact that after his obituary was mistakenly published, Samuel Langhorne Clemens—better known by the pen name Mark Twain—sent a cable from London stating: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”


Actions

Information

159 responses

21 01 2010
naegeleblog

Matt Drudge announced at his Web site on January 21, 2010 that ObamaCare is dead: “THE DAY HEALTH CARE DIED.” See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul; see also http://www.naegele.com/documents/DRUDGEREPORT2010.pdf

Moderate Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) describes it as being on “life support,” which might be optimistic. See http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/28/2188267.aspx

Also, the American people are overwhelmingly against ObamaCare. See, e.g., http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2010/61_say_it_s_time_for_congress_to_drop_health_care

Germany’s Spiegel Online International even has a headline that reads: “The World Bids Farewell to Obama.” See http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,673192,00.html

Last but not least, Obama’s war on Wall Street bankers is pure demagoguery, Chicago-style, which is intended to distract Americans from his failing Administration.

11 02 2010
naegeleblog

Thanks, Karl, But No Thanks

In a Wall Street Journal article entitled, “Republicans and the Health Care Pow-Wow”—and subtitled, “It’s an opportunity to show which party has better ideas”—Karl Rove suggests that the Republicans compromise with President Obama on health care legislation, or at least give the appearance of doing so. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

His article is worth reading. See http://www.naegele.com/documents/KarlRove-RepublicansandtheHealthCarePow-Wow.pdf

My response at the Journal’s Web site is as follows:

. . . but Karl, while your ideas are very nice and sweet, lots of us do not want any bill at all, nada, never. We want ObamaCare to be one of the signature failures of Obama’s hopefully short-lived presidency, just like HillaryCare went down in flames during her husband’s presidency—never to see the light of day again until now.

The GOP has the votes to kill the legislation. Lots of very smart people believe it is dead now. Why spend two seconds debating the issues and enhancing Obama’s reputation? Just use your votes and kill it once and for all. Play hardball like the Chicago crowd does.

In case you haven’t noticed, Karl, lots of us are Independents who do not love the GOP any more than we love the Dems. In fact, if we could get rid of both political parties, many of us might do it in a heartbeat.

Thus, don’t muddy up the waters with some quasi-esoteric discussions about the merits of one heath care idea versus another. They just cause eyes to glaze over, and attention spans to shorten. Just kill the legislation, and leave Medicare alone. That’s all we want.

If the GOP fails to do this, lots of us may think twice about voting for your candidates.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704140104575057163247687930.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

23 01 2010
naegeleblog

When will Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner and other Obama insiders leave the Administration? The speculation is rampant.

See, e.g., http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/821dce96-0786-11df-915f-00144feabdc0.html

However, they are Barack Obama. When they leave, the slippery slope will be greased for the president’s departure from the national stage as well.

Obama has never seemed to have problems jettisoning those close to him in life, when they no longer served his needs or furthered his ambitions (e.g., Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright).

23 01 2010
bobbcat

Terrific post. I don’t think the above could be said in a better way.

28 01 2010
Andrew Gross

We’d be interested on your thoughts on The State of the Union speech last evening.

28 01 2010
naegeleblog

I did not watch it. I cannot stand to watch him. I am sure there are lots of people who felt that way about George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton too. One either likes a politician and believes in him or her, or one does not.

28 01 2010
naegeleblog

As stated in another blog article of mine:

Earlier in the year, the president had the audacity to give himself a “B+” for his performance in office. However, it is doubtful that a majority of Americans would give him a grade even remotely approaching that. In fact, he has been given an “F” for protecting Americans, and criticized harshly.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor/; see also http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100020934/barack-obama-gets-an-f-for-protecting-americans and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101744.html (“The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension”)

Now, it is argued that he deserves an “F” for world leadership too. See http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100024086/state-of-the-union-obama-gets-an-f-for-world-leadership/

29 01 2010
Scott Safe

Encompasses my thoughts and just about everyone I talk to, AND I even live in California. Obama is mediocre at best. I just honestly think he believes that most Americans are stupid, and he speaks to us as such. Yes, I agree he’s quite articulate, unlike George W., but his ability to articulate and sell transcends he’s nothing but a socialist dreamer who has never in his life had to balance a budget, raise capital to fund a business, make a payroll, let employees go because you can’t pay them any longer, or be accountable to the owners. ‘Community Organizer’ is his resume. But he’s barely qualified to be a precinct captain on a political campaign. The mere position that he can unabashedly raise taxes to fund his Trillion $ plus healthcare dream shows how out of touch with reality he is.

Good work. Keep up the fight Timothy.

29 01 2010
naegeleblog

I will, Scott, thanks to comments from nice people like you. :-)

You might wish to read an earlier piece of mine: http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

The article’s title is truly a question, which each reader will answer for himself or herself. I read his book twice, after the election last year, and was “shocked” by his candor. I doubt many Americans really knew what he stood for, or understood his “core beliefs.” They are all there, in black and white, fully documented.

29 01 2010
naegeleblog

As stated in a posting beneath another blog article of mine:

As if it were not bad enough that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may take place in New York City—rather than in a military tribunal—the White House is considering a criminal trial in Washington, D.C. for Riduan Isamuddin, who was Osama bin Laden’s point man in Indonesia. See, e.g., http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-naw-gitmo-trial16-2010jan16,0,5123433.story and http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100115/D9D85QG80.html

This Guantanamo Bay “detainee” is suspected of masterminding the bombing of a Bali nightclub in 2002, which killed 202 people. If the Obama Administration proceeds with this insanity, it would bring one of the world’s most notorious terrorists within steps of the U.S. Capitol, and needlessly subject the city to the risk of additional attacks, not dissimilar to what occurred at the Pentagon on 9/11.

At some point, it would not be surprising if serious thought is given to impeachment of Obama.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor/

A posting below that states:

The latest is that Obama has asked the Justice Department to look for other places to hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However, the decision to consider new venues does not change the White House’s position that Mohammed should be tried in a civilian court.

See http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_white_house_orders_justice_department_to_look_for_other_places_to_hold_911_terro.html

The last sentence of the comment above may take on greater meaning.

Perhaps even more disturbing from a national security standpoint is the decision made by the Obama Administration with respect to the terrorist in the failed Christmas Day airline bombing, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to give him the right to remain silent after he came under the full control of the U.S. government.

As the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer states in another of his brilliant articles:

We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).

The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803511.html

Surely there will come a time in the future when the issue of “Community-Organizer-In-Chief” Obama’s impeachment will become real and urgent.

2 02 2010
naegeleblog

Fouad Ajami is a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has written an interesting Wall Street Journal article entitled, “The Obama Spell Is Broken,” which is worth reading.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029110104772360.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read#articleTabs%3Darticle

My response at the Journal’s Web site is as follows:

Perhaps the BEST that can be said about Barack Obama is that (1) he is essentially the “emperor” in the famous Danish fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen, whose core beliefs and modus operandi are becoming clear for Americans and the world to see, as the second decade of the 21st Century begins ominously.

Also, (2) he is a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history; (3) his naïveté has been matched by his overarching narcissism, and he is more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter; (4) his presidency will be considered a sad watershed in history; and (5) he is an anti-war far-Left “Community-Organizer-In-Chief” who does not know how to run a war, much less successfully.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start

In all likelihood, he is a mistake of potentially cataclysmic proportions, which can only be appreciated fully if one reads (or rereads) his “Dreams from My Father.” See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist

Unlike Ajami’s views on the subject, Obama seems very much like John F. Kennedy: a failed American president (see http://www.naegele.com/documents/ReaganJFK.pdf). Kennedy was enthralled by his own mystique—and his immorality made Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods seem like choir boys. The spell of Camelot was broken long ago.

Also, the Europeans are becoming disenchanted with Obama, just as Americans are, especially Independent voters.

Otherwise, I agree with most if not all of what Ajami has written.

2 02 2010
naegeleblog

Now Barack Obama is bowing to the Mayor of Tampa, Florida!

Obama bowing again!

See http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100128/480/b07861589f354ce698c3bf88b741d692/

The man is pathetic. He has bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia (see, e.g., http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=obama+bowing+to+saudi+king&aq=0&oq=obama+bowing+to+&aqi=g4&start=0), the Emperor of Japan (see, e.g., http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=obama+bowing+to+japanese+emperor&aq=2&oq=obama+bowing+to+&aqi=g4&start=0), the Chinese (see, e.g., http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=obama+bowing+to+chinese&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0), and now the Mayor of Tampa.

What’s next? Most Americans believe their president should never bow before anyone.

It has been written that Alexander the Great attempted to impose the Persian court ceremonial—involving prostration (or what has been described as a “courtly kiss”)—on the Greeks and his Macedonian countrymen. However to them this custom, habitual for Persians entering the king’s presence, implied an act of worship toward a god and was intolerable before a man. Macedonian laughter caused the experiment to founder, and Alexander abandoned it. See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/alexander-the-great/

17 02 2010
naegeleblog

The Lament Of Evan Bayh

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/Fund-WhyEvanBayhIsQuittingtheSenate.pdf

This fine article by the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund is entitled, “Why Bayh Is Quitting the Senate”—and it is subtitled, “‘I do have a sense of deja vu,’ the senator says, ‘and the movie doesn’t have a happy ending.'” It provides insights into why Indiana’s U.S. Senator, a Democrat, has announced that he will not seek re-election. His father, Birch Bayh, was a distinguished senator from Indiana too (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birch_Bayh), and a friend of the senator for whom I worked.

Fund states:

[Evan Bayh] had issued several warnings to fellow Democrats. Last month, for example, he told Gerald
Seib of this newspaper that his party’s liberals were “tone deaf” to the fact that they’d “overreached” in their agenda. “For those people,” he said, “it may take a political catastrophe of biblical proportions before they get it.”

My guess is that those on the far-Left will never get it, because they are “true believers” and blinded. The same thing is true of those on the far-Right, which is why I am an Independent and have been for 20 years or so. Both Bayhs represent the type of politicians whom I like and respect—and the best of political Washington—not “flame-throwers” from the far reaches of either end of the political spectrum.

Fund adds:

All of this makes one wonder if Democrats will ever have a “Tony Blair” moment and make a conscious return to the political center.

Not as long as Barack Obama is president, because he is as far-Left as one can get, or certainly close. Read (or reread) his book, “Dreams from My Father,” if you have any doubts.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

Next, Fund states:

So far, Democrats show no signs of thinking the U.S. is a country whose “default mechanism” in politics is to the center-right. They retain faith that Barack Obama can work some magic and make things better. But should he continue to slide in polls and the horror movie Mr. Bayh refers to is replayed this fall, they may want to rethink matters.

But they won’t, because the “loonies” at the far-Left of the party have taken over, and Obama is one of them. Despite the fact that he “jettisoned” his friends Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright during the campaign—which is what politicians running for the highest offices generally do, when their friends are perceived as “baggage”—the three of them were and presumably still are simpatico in terms of their core beliefs.

19 02 2010
naegeleblog

The Latest Outrages

As the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer has written in a column entitled, “Closing the new frontier”:

[T]he Obama 2011 budget kills [the U.S. Space Shuttle's replacement,] Constellation. Instead, we shall have nothing. For the first time since John Glenn flew in 1962, the United States will have no access of its own for humans into space—and no prospect of getting there in the foreseeable future.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021103484.html

Krauthammer adds:

[D]ecades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative “clean energy.” Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration.

Krauthammer’s fine article concludes:

At the peak of the Apollo program, NASA was consuming almost 4 percent of the federal budget, which in terms of the 2011 budget is about $150 billion. Today the manned space program will die for want of $3 billion a year—1/300th of last year’s stimulus package with its endless make-work projects that will leave not a trace on the national consciousness.

As for President Obama’s commitment to beyond-lunar space: Has he given a single speech, devoted an iota of political capital to it?

Obama’s NASA budget perfectly captures the difference in spirit between [John F.] Kennedy’s liberalism and Obama’s. Kennedy’s was an expansive, bold, outward-looking summons. Obama’s is a constricted, inward-looking call to retreat.

Fifty years ago, Kennedy opened the New Frontier. Obama has just shut it.

That speaks volumes.

See also http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1004/armstong_obama_hurting_space.html

In his latest column entitled, “It’s nonsense to say the U.S. is ungovernable,” Krauthammer writes:

It’s 2010, and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama’s two signature initiatives—cap-and-trade and health-care reform—lie in ruins.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021803413.html

He concludes:

{T]he Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections—Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

That’s not a structural defect. That’s a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself—despite the special interests—through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

Or as John Fund wrote in a Wall Street Journal article, which is quoted in the posting above:

[Evan Bayh] had issued several warnings to fellow Democrats. Last month, for example, he told Gerald
Seib of this newspaper that his party’s liberals were “tone deaf” to the fact that they’d “overreached” in their agenda. “For those people,” he said, “it may take a political catastrophe of biblical proportions before they get it.”

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/Fund-WhyEvanBayhIsQuittingtheSenate.pdf

It is not surprising that the latest Rasmussen poll shows that 73 percent of American voters agree with Vice President Joe Biden that “Washington right now is broken.” Also, 63 percent believe it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated this November.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/73_agree_that_washington_is_broken

As I wrote in an article that was published by the McClatchy-Tribune News Service last April:

America and other nations are in uncharted waters; and their politicians may face backlashes from disillusioned and angry constituents that are unprecedented in modern times.

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html

The chickens are coming home to roost!

20 02 2010
naegeleblog

The Lowest Approval Yet For Obama

The latest results of the highly-respected Rasmussen poll are the following:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday [February 21, 2010] shows that 22% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. That is the lowest level of strong approval yet recorded for this President.

Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. The Approval Index has been lower only on one day during Barack Obama’s thirteen months in office (see trends). The previous low came on December 22 as the Senate was preparing to approve its version of the proposed health care legislation. The current lows come as the President is once again focusing attention on the health care legislation.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

22 02 2010
23 02 2010
naegeleblog

Doubling Down On ObamaCare!

As a Wall Street Journal editorial states:

[A]fter election defeats in Virginia, New Jersey and even Massachusetts, and amid overwhelming public opposition, Democrats have decided to give the voters what they don’t want anyway.

Seehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704454304575081391789004352.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

Obama and his minions are making a terrible mistake by doubling down on ObamaCare. Even if they were successful, the taste that it would leave in the mouths of most Americans would be revolting, quite literally.

The Journal concludes:

The larger political message of this new proposal is that Mr. Obama and Democrats have no intention of compromising on an incremental reform, or of listening to Republican, or any other, ideas on health care. They want what they want, and they’re going to play by Chicago Rules and try to dragoon it into law on a narrow partisan vote via Congressional rules that have never been used for such a major change in national policy. If you want to know why Democratic Washington is “ungovernable,” this is it.

See id.

Here are the highly-respected Rasmussen poll results as of February 23, 2010:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters favor the proposed health care plan, while 56% oppose it. Those figures include 45% who strongly oppose the plan and just 23% who strongly favor it.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

This may be the defining moment of Obama’s presidency, and the beginning of the end. Also, movements may begin to build, aimed at impeachment of him.

1 03 2010
naegeleblog

He’s Still Smoking, But What About The Alcohol?

See http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-health1-2010mar01,0,7731069.story (“Although Obama has cut back on cigarettes, he has not quit and the doctor recommended that he ‘continue smoking cessation efforts,’ including nicotine gum”)

Most Americans do not know that he smokes, because it has been hidden from them, just like Franklin D. Roosevelt’s disabilities stemming from polio were hidden from voters. At the very least, this is deception.

Also, for those of us who smoked years ago (e.g., I gave up cigarettes 33 years ago), it is mind-boggling that President Obama has not quit before now. He has two young daughters, and presumably he wants to watch them grow up and have children of their own, and be there.

Next, what an ex-smoker learns quickly is that kissing a smoker is like kissing an ash tray—it is T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E. One would think that Michelle Obama knows that in spades.

. . .

Perhaps what is most interesting is that his doctors “also recommended ‘moderation of alcohol intake’.”

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1254684/Barack-Obama-try-harder-kick-smoking-habit-doctors-say.html

2 03 2010
naegeleblog

The Rise Of Independents

According to the highly-respected Rasmussen poll:

The number of adults not affiliated with either major party is now up to 32.9%. That matches the all-time high recorded twice during the summer of 2007.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends; see also http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends2/summary_of_party_affiliation and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/

3 03 2010
naegeleblog

ObamaCare And The “Nuclear Option”

See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-democrats-will-use-reconciliation-to-pass-senate-health-care-bill.html

If the President uses the “nuclear option” with respect to ObamaCare, which the American people oppose, Republicans and Independents should begin the impeachment process right away, and not cease until Obama is removed from office.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52 percent of U.S. voters continue to oppose the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats, while 44 percent favor it. But passion remains on the side of the opponents: just 22 percent “Strongly Favor” the plan while 43 percent “Strongly” Oppose it.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Also, the Wall Street Journal has an editorial entitled, “Abuse of Power,” which is worth noting.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

As the Journal states:

A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can’t stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it’s good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.

. . .

Democrats are only resorting to [the legislative shortcut of "reconciliation," a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures] now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they’ve failed to make their case through persuasion.

The Journal cites House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying: “[T]he American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress.” And the editorial adds:

Leave aside the irony of invoking “the American people” on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents.

. . .

This raw exercise of political power is of a piece with the copious corruption and bribery—such as the Cornhusker kickbacks and special tax benefits for union members—that liberals had to use to get even this far.

The editorial concludes:

As Mr. Obama fatalistically said after his health summit, if voters don’t like it, “then that’s what elections are for.”

In other words, he’s volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.

Thus, after concluding emphatically that what Obama and the Democrats are doing is an abuse of power, nonetheless the Journal stops short of calling for his removal from office. Time will tell whether the Journal’s timidity is warranted, and whether its judgment is wise on this and other subjects. It takes courage to speak out—and no courage at all to “count angels on the head of a pin” and pontificate while “Rome burns.”

Republicans should join with like-minded Independents and throw out Democrats in November’s elections, and initiate the impeachment process. Only by taking such bold actions will the abuses of power be curbed.

. . .

One wag on the Web has written:

This is what happens when you get a one term Senator turn President. . . . He’ll look like a fool long before 2012—all he’ll have is worthless Nobel Prize to show for his folly.

If only things were as simple as that. Obama’s damage may be far greater than one can imagine—indeed, incalculable.

5 03 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Is An Unmitigated Disaster Who Just Keeps Getting Worse!

I did not start out believing that, at all. Indeed, as an Independent, I was prone to vote for him. I listened to him carefully, and watched the nuances of his speeches, and the like. In the end, I voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin because I like her spunkiness, I liked him—after many years of feeling he was out on the “fringes”—and because I felt that national security and the economy were the only issues that really mattered, and I gave McCain the edge by far.

After the election, I made the “mistake” of reading Obama’s “Dreams from My Father,” twice. While I understood where he was coming from, it was not the direction in which I believed then or now that America should be heading. See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

Fast forward to today, and I just read Peggy Noonan’s latest Wall Street Journal article. Normally, I avoid her like the plague because she is so narcissistic that she makes the most raving narcissist on the face of the Earth pale by comparison. However, her latest article is worth reading.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/PeggyNoonan-WhataDisasterLooksLike.pdf

In it, she says about ObamaCare:

Why, in 2009, create a new crisis over an important but secondary issue when we already have the Great Recession and two wars?

I would say the “Great Depression II,” but she is close enough.

See, e.g., http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html and http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/173_212/-365185-1.html

She adds:

New presidents should never, ever, court any problem that isn’t already banging at the door. They should never summon trouble. Mr. Obama did, boldly, perhaps even madly. And this is perhaps the oddest thing about No Drama Obama: In his first year as president he created unneeded political drama, and wound up [being] seen by many Americans not as the hero but the villain.

Amen. Next, Noonan says:

What accounts for Mr. Obama’s confidence and certainty?

Sweet Peggy, he’s a raving narcissist just like you. You are gazing in a mirror.

She adds:

Well, if you were a young progressive who’d won the presidency by a comfortable margin in a center-right country, you just might think you were a genius. You might not be surprised to find yourself surrounded by a cultish admiration: “They see him as a fabled figure,” said a frequent White House visitor of some on the president’s staff.

Just like JFK’s staff, and he was a disaster too. See http://www.naegele.com/documents/ReaganJFK.pdf

Noonan uses the term “young progressive” more than once, presumably referring to Democrats of all persuasions, as well as those on the far-Left. She is ‘politically correct” in doing so, but she needs to learn that “political correctness” is in the process of going out of fashion like Obama. It is utter nonsense, like the fraud of “global warming.”

Next, she says:

And now here are two growing problems for Mr. Obama.

She seems to have her head planted firmly in the ground. Obama’s problems are endless. Indeed, it can be argued that he has done nothing right, beginning with his acceptance of the Nobel “peace” prize in the midst of two wars, when he had done nothing at all to earn any honors.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/

Noonan’s “two growing problems” for Obama are:

1. “The president can’t be a hope purveyor while he’s a doom merchant”

He doesn’t know any better. He has failed at everything in life, except being a professional politician. See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

2. “[A] growing credibility gap”—”[N]othing he said [about ObamaCare] sounded true”

Wake up, Peggy Dear, the guy is a phony, and nothing more. A friend of mine in New York City believes that when Obama comes crashing down from Mount Olympus, it may be a horrible spectacle—like people wondering whether Nixon would crack over Watergate. The fact is that Nixon had a decent family background growing up, with supportive parents. Obama never had a father, except for a month when he was 10; his mother and he were apart for long periods of time; and his only stability consisted of his maternal grandparents, “Toot” and “Gramps.”

See id.

Noonan concludes by suggesting that Obama is a disaster, which of course is true—but we have only seen the tip of that iceberg so far.

5 03 2010
naegeleblog

ObamaCare And The End Of Obama!

Charles Krauthammer has another fine article today in the Washington Post, about ObamaCare.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030404040.html

Before discussing it, one needs to understand that government at all levels does not work—except for the Pentagon and our truly outstanding military. It is just that simple. Anyone who has worked in and with the federal government knows this in spades. Hence, ObamaCare, if it ever becomes law, is apt to be a total disaster, like Obama is. He may be known for generations as its father, and hated for it.

Leave aside the wars—and Afghanistan is only apt to get worse (see, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start)—and the economy that will get much worse too, ObamaCare is the defining moment for its namesake. As Americans learn more and more about this government monstrosity, they will come to hate him. He may achieve, as predicted, a status of the most-hated president in American history.

Krauthammer concludes:

The man who ran as a post-partisan is determined to remake a sixth of the U.S. economy despite the absence of support from a single Republican in either house, the first time anything of this size and scope has been enacted by pure party-line vote.

Surprised? You can only be disillusioned if you were once illusioned.

Again, Republicans should join with like-minded Independents and throw out Democrats in November’s elections, and initiate the impeachment process. Only by taking such bold actions will the abuses of power be curbed.

. . .

If anyone has any doubts about the damage that Obama is doing, it is useful to understand that his policies are projected to add $9.7 trillion to U.S. debt by 2020. Yet, this is merely the tip of the iceberg of reasons to remove him from office, before he does any more damage to this great country.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502974.html; see also http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_go_co/us_budget_deficits_3

7 03 2010
naegeleblog

The Democrats Are Doomed Because Of Obama

In a recent article, Dick Morris states:

In U.S. politics, all elections are not created equal. It’s OK to lose the state legislative and gubernatorial elections held on years ending in 2, 4, 6 or 8. But you can’t afford to lose those held in years that end in 0. Those are the reapportionment elections.

With the governorships evenly divided and almost all of the state legislatures, the party that loses the decadal election stands to lose control over congressional reapportionment. And, therefore, to lose control of the House of Representatives for a decade.

When Obama persists with his unpopular healthcare proposals, he is dooming his party not just to defeat in 2010, but to losses throughout the coming decade.

He adds:

Presidents only lose when they get stuck in scandal or in their own misguided convictions. So it was with Johnson and Vietnam, Nixon and Watergate, Ford and the pardon, Reagan and Iran-Contra, Bush and the recession, Clinton and Lewinsky and Bush-43 and Iraq. Now Obama is repeating the lamentable history of his predecessors by getting stuck in the mire of his own ideology over healthcare.

So in the elections of 2010, Republicans, independents and even some Democrats (Obama’s rating is now down to 43 percent in Rasmussen) will vote a straight Republican ticket. Gone is the chic notion that party doesn’t matter and one should vote for the individual. Obama has ended those days. Now Democrats can expect the same kind of swath of destruction that will obliterate their congressional and Senate majorities to destroy their hold on statehouses and legislatures. And on the 2011 reapportionment.

See http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/84551-doom-of-the-dems-in-2010 (emphasis added).

Fascinating!

9 03 2010
naegeleblog

Success In Iraq, With No Help From Obama, Biden Or The Democrats!

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575109613619617840.html

This is a remarkable editorial—reflecting truly remarkable American successes—one of many fine editorials in the Wall Street Journal, which is why it has become the newspaper to read more and more.

It was George W. Bush’s war, and that of Dick Cheney, and they have won it so far. This will be writ large in history.

I opposed it, and had arguments with my son—who is more conservative than I am—because I believed we would be fighting to make the Middle East safe for Israel, which I did not feel was worth the loss of American lives or the likely quagmire that would result from our invasion.

See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/documents/DemocratsIraq.pdf and http://www.naegele.com/documents/Democrats-PartyOfRetreatDefeat.pdf

In the end, I supported Bush, and admired the fact that he overruled the Pentagon and ordered the troop “surge,” which General David Petraeus and John McCain had championed. This is their victory too.

I left the Democratic Party years ago because I believed it had become the party of retreat and defeat; and Lyndon Johnson’s micromanagement and loss of the Vietnam War remains a shining example of that. Friends of mine were killed in that senseless war, along with at least a million Vietnamese, even though it might have been won.

Fast forward to today, and the totally pathetic Democrats have been claiming the victory in Iraq as their own. The national buffoon, Joe Biden, stated in a recent interview with Larry King:

“[T]his could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

See http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1002/10/lkl.01.html and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/#comment-169; see also http://www.naegele.com/documents/BretStephens-IraqisEmbraceDemocracy-DoWe.pdf

Really? First, Biden wanted to carve up Iraq three ways: part for the Sunnis, part for the Shiites, and part for the Kurds. Second, our “Community-Organizer-In-Chief” Obama was opposed to the war completely; and of course he opposed Bush’s “surge” that essentially won the war.

The Journal’s editorial adds:

“it was unfortunate to hear Mr. Obama, with the polls barely closed and no votes counted, promptly declare the election makes it possible that ‘by the end of next year, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq.'”

How can anyone be surprised about this? Obama is a fool, and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history. His naïveté has been matched by his overarching narcissism; and he is more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter. His presidency will be considered a sad watershed in history.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/

ObamaCare is a travesty, which the American people oppose; and this abuse of power may give rise to an impeachment effort. If Obama does anything to thwart our victory in Iraq, he should be run out of office on a rail, politically.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-235

10 03 2010
naegeleblog

Why Americans Don’t Support ObamaCare, And Why ObamaCare Should Be Scrapped

The Wall Street Journal has a brilliant analysis by pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen about why most Americans consistently oppose ObamaCare.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704784904575111993559174212.html

Among the points raised are the following:

The reason President Obama can’t move the numbers and build public support is because the fundamentals are stacked against him. Most voters believe the current plan will harm the economy, cost more than projected, raise the cost of care, and lead to higher middle-class taxes.

That’s a tough sell when the economy is hurting and people want reform to lower the cost of care. It’s also a tough sell for a president who won an election by promising tax cuts for 95% of all Americans.

Next, Rasmussen has found:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe that passage of the proposed health care legislation will hurt the economy. Just 25% believe it will help. Forty-two percent (42%) favor the President’s health care plan while 53% are opposed. Fifty-five percent (55%) say that Congress should scrap the current health care legislation and start over.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/RasmussenDailyPresidentialTrackingPoll.pdf

11 03 2010
naegeleblog

The “Perfect Storm” For Obama

Obama is losing his Liberal base. Republicans deserted him ages ago. Independents, such as yours truly, have been leaving him too, in ever-increasing numbers.

USA Today is reporting:

“It’s the perfect storm” for Obama, [pollster Frank Luntz] says. “All the conservative groups are coalescing out of anger and all the liberal groups are disappearing out of anger. If he moves to satisfy one, he destroys himself with the other. … He’s in a really tough spot.”

See http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-10-liberals_N.htm

The article adds:

Liberal and progressive organizations that helped propel him to the White House are turning on him now, little more than a year after he took office. Their collective discontent, on issues from health care to nuclear energy to the handling of terrorism suspects, could mean bad news for Democrats during this fall’s congressional elections.

How did the far-Left and Left ever get the label of “progressives”? This is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Also, as I wrote in an article for the McClatchy newspapers almost a year ago now, which dealt with the U.S. and global economies that are turning down once again after a relatively-brief “reprieve”:

America and other nations are in uncharted waters; and their politicians may face backlashes from disillusioned and angry constituents that are unprecedented in modern times.

It is just beginning!

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html; see also http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/10/united-states-recovery-recession-opinions-columnists-nouriel-roubini.html

Next, it has been reported that the president and his minions have shut down a federal investigation of Obama’s ACORN, which is another scandal if it is true!

See http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2010/mar/obama-justice-department-shut-down-federal-acorn-investigation-according-documents-obt

12 03 2010
naegeleblog

The Arrogance Of Obama And Pelosi

Politico.com is reporting:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her members [of Congress] Friday to brace themselves for a climatic health care vote as early as next week, warning them to clear their schedules for next weekend and promising to stay in session until the landmark vote, people present at the meeting told POLITICO. President Barack Obama has postponed an overseas trip until March 21, and Pelosi said, “I am delighted the president will be here for the passage of the bill. It will be historic.”

Totally ignoring the will of the American people against ObamaCare, they are forging ahead as if it did not matter at all. Hopefully (1) their “hopes” are dashed, and (2) the demise of ObamaCare will mark the beginning of the end politically for both Obama and Pelosi.

18 03 2010
naegeleblog

Americans Sour On Congress

The Wall Street Journal’s Gerald F. Seib has an article entitled, “Amid Health Debate, Public Gets Sick—of Congress,” which is worth reading.

In it, he states:

The brawling . . . has fed a public unhappiness with the institution of Congress that now borders on disgust.

. . .

Most striking, the Journal/NBC News pollsters posed this hypothetical: If there were a line on the ballot that would allow you to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, including your own representative, would you do it? Fully half of the respondents said they would.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703523204575129543711012672.html

19 03 2010
naegeleblog

Impeachment!

ObamaCare is truly an Obamination. However, it is merely one of many human tragedies wrought by this president. Anyone who has read his “Dreams from My Father” knows that this and worse is coming.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

The Washington Times has an article by Jeffrey T. Kuhner, President of the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal, a Washington think tank, in which the specter of Obama’s impeachment is set forth in unequivocal terms:

If [his health care legislation is] enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

See http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/

Independents will likely flock to that effort—just as Americans joined together to remove Lyndon Johnson from office as the 1968 elections approached, and just as Richard Nixon was forced from the presidency in 1974!

See also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575130321235660474.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

20 03 2010
22 03 2010
naegeleblog

American Healthcare: “You Break It, You Own It”

House Democrats have passed President Obama’s federal takeover of the U.S. health-care system. A Wall Street Journal editorial states:

[B]y ramming the vote through Congress on a narrow partisan majority, and against so much popular opposition, Democrats have taken responsibility for what comes next—to insurance premiums, government spending, doctor shortages and the quality of care. They are now the rulers of American medicine.

. . .

When prices rise and quality and choice suffer, the fault will lie with ObamaCare.

. . .

All of this means the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill is ready for Mr. Obama’s signature, though only because rank-and-file House Members also passed a bill of amendments that will now go back to the Senate under “reconciliation” rules that require only 50 votes. Those amendments almost certainly contravene the plain rules of reconciliation, and the goal for Senate Republicans should be to defeat this second “fix-it” bill.

. . .

While the passage of ObamaCare marks a liberal triumph, its impact will play out over many years. We fought this bill so vigorously because we have studied government health care in other countries, and the results include much higher taxes, slower economic growth and worse medical care. As for the politics, the first verdict arrives in November.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775504575135881813148208.html (emphasis added)

24 03 2010
naegeleblog
25 03 2010
naegeleblog

Dick Morris, Karl Rove And ObamaCare

Here is the latest from Morris:

RESPONDING TO OBAMACARE: RESTORE, DEFEAT, DEFUND, REPEAL

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Let’s begin our reaction to the passage of Obamacare by remembering Winston Churchill’s famous formulation with which he introduced his war memoirs:

In defeat: defiance
In war: resolution
In victory: magnanimity
In peace: goodwill

Now is the time for defiance! Here’s what we must do:

1. Restore the Medicare cuts mandated in this bill. Block the reduction of physicians’ fees by 21% scheduled to take effect this fall. Override the cuts in Medicare that require annual approval by Congress. Challenge the Democrats over each and every cut. Try to peel away enough votes to stop the cuts from driving doctors and hospitals to adopt the course already taken by the Mayo Clinic in refusing to take Medicare patients.

2. Defeat the Democrats in the 2010 election! Start with the traitors who voted no in November and then switched to a shameful yes when it counted in March: Baird (Washington), Nye (Virginia), Kosmas and Boyd (Florida). Then go on to win the open seats in the House and Senate. And then fight to replace as many Democrats as possible. Remember: Any Democrat who voted no would have voted yes if they had needed his or her vote. The only way to repeal Obamacare is to vote Republican.

3. Defund Once we get the majority in both chambers, defund appropriations for the Obamacare program. The bill passed by the Congress and signed by the president is simply an authorization measure. Funds must be appropriated for it each year by Congress. Through zero funding these changes, we can cripple them before they take full effect.

4. Repeal And, once we defeat Barack Obama, we need to proceed to repeal this disastrous plan before it can ruin our health care system. Then, we must replace it with a Republican alternative which relies on the marketplace, tax incentives, and individual responsibility to provide health care to all Americans.

Above all, we must finally learn the fundamental lesson this political process we have been through has to teach: That there is no such thing as a conservative or moderate Democrat. Blue dogs don’t exist in real life. Only yellow dogs.

The days when there were Democrats who refused to follow their radical leftwing party line are over. There are no longer “state” Democrats who vote conservative as opposed to “national” Democrats who vote with the left. They are an extinct species. Some Senators and Congressmen capitalize on our memories of those days and pretend to be moderates. But they are just faking it.

Nancy Pelosi knew—as Harry Reid knew in the Senate—that she had the potential support of every single Democrat in her chamber if only the price was right. The sole difference between moderate and liberal Democrats is their asking price. Moderates require slightly higher bribes to assure their votes.

There are only two kinds of Congressmen or Senators: Democrats and Republicans. We have had a national education and its time to learn from it. In days gone by, intelligent people liked to say that they voted for the person, not the party. Now those who say this are fooling themselves. There is only party! The most conservative Democrat is way to the left of the most liberal Republican.

The Democratic victory on Obamacare will prove the most expensive in the party’s history. It will lead to the eradication of their majority, the defeat of more than fifty of their Congressmen, the switch of Senate control, and Republican domination for decades. And, in the end, it will have done nothing to improve health care. But, fortunately, we can win the 2010 election to stop it from doing much damage.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/03/23/responding-to-obamacare-restore-defeat-defund-repeal/#more-746

. . .

Karl Rove adds:

Democrats claim they’ve rallied their left-wing base. But that base isn’t big enough to carry the fall elections, particularly after the party alienated independents and seniors.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575142032773435558.html

. . .

Lastly, the Wall Street Journal has chimed in about the draconian results of ObamaCare; and Max Boot (formerly of the Journal) argues that the U.S. cannot fund ObamaCare and maintain its superpower status.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html and http://www.naegele.com/documents/MaxBoot-ObamaCareandAmericanPower.pdf

6 04 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Moves To Gut Our Strategy of Nuclear Deterrence

Barack Obama is taking unilateral actions to limit when the United States would use nuclear weapons, even in self-defense, which is dangerous and irresponsible.

As the New York Times’ article states:

Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?pagewanted=all; see also http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7088561.ece

As much as Obama might like to believe otherwise, in more than 2,000 years, the following passage from the Bible has never come true:

[T]hey shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Isaiah 2:4 (King James Version)

We do not live in a “Mary Poppins” world.

George W. Bush kept American safe and strong; however, there are serious questions whether Obama is building on and not diminishing that strength. The idea that the U.S. and Russia would replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) with a new agreement that would cut each side’s nuclear arsenal is absurd. The Russians cannot be trusted; and Obama’s weakness is on display when he cuts any deals with Russia’s dictator-for-life Putin. It is equivalent to appeasing Stalin or Hitler; and it weakens the United States vis-à-vis China and our other adversaries.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/ and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7085041.ece (“Conflict between Russia and the US is unfathomable”—which is a naive, unrealistic and irresponsible statement)

The New York Times’ article adds:

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?pagewanted=all

China and to a lesser extent Russia are America’s enemies every bit as much as they ever were.

The idea that Obama would take steps to weaken America militarily, and the ability to defend ourselves, is potentially an impeachable offense.

See also http://www.newsweek.com/id/235884

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey concludes:

Fifty-five percent (55%) of U.S. voters oppose President Obama’s new policy prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attacks on the United States.

[J]ust 25% of voters agree with the president’s decision to rule out a nuclear response if a non-nuclear country attacks America with chemical or biological weapons. Another 20% are undecided.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/55_oppose_limits_on_u_s_nuclear_response_to_attacks

8 04 2010
naegeleblog

The New START Treaty Is A Travesty, And Obama Is A Traitor

Keith B. Payne has written an excellent article for the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Evaluating the U.S.-Russia Nuclear Deal.” It is subtitled, “The White House and Kremlin can’t seem to agree what’s in it, but it appears to restrict U.S. missile defense efforts and has no limits on Russia’s tactical nukes,” which says it all.

Among his conclusions are the following:

[T]he New START Treaty includes the potential for a large increase in the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, not a reduction.

. . .

The New START restrictions on missile defense as described by Russian officials could harm U.S. security in the future. For example, if the U.S. must increase its strategic missile defenses rapidly in response to now-unforeseen threat developments, one of the few options available could be to use Minuteman silo launchers for interceptors, either at California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base or empty operational silos elsewhere. Yet, if the Russian description of New START is correct, doing so would be prohibited and the launchers themselves probably will be eliminated to meet the treaty’s limitation on launchers. U.S. officials’ assurances and Russian descriptions cannot both be true.

. . .

[T]he U.S. will have to reduce the number of its strategic delivery vehicles—silos, submarine tubes and bombers—but in the bargain it will get the benefit of like Russian reductions.

This sounds reasonable. According to virtually all Russian sources, however, New START’s agreed ceiling on strategic nuclear delivery vehicles will not require Russia to give up anything not already bound for its scrap heap.

. . .

Some hope that New START’s amicable “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations will inspire Russian help with other issues, such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, where they have been less than forthcoming. This is a vain hope, as is demonstrated by the past 40 years of strategic-arms control: Innovative strategic force agreements and reductions follow improvements in general political relations. They do not lead to them.

Finally, for many the great locus of concern about Russian nuclear weapons lies in its large arsenal of tactical (i.e., short-range) nuclear weapons. According to U.S. officials, Russia has a 10-to-one numeric advantage. In 2002, then Sens. Joe Biden and John Kerry, and the current White House Science Adviser, John Holdren, expressed great concern that the Bush administration’s Moscow Treaty did not limit Russian tactical forces. One might expect, therefore, that New START would do so; but the Russians apparently were adamant about excluding tactical nuclear weapons from New START.

This omission is significant. The Russians are now more explicit and threatening about tactical nuclear war-fighting including in regional conflicts. Yet we still have no limitations on Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal. The problem may now be more severe than in 2002, but concern seems curiously to have eased.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/KeithB.Payne-EvaluatingtheNewSTARTTreaty.pdf

This treaty should be rejected by the Senate; or failing that, it should become another major reason for defeating the Democrats in the November elections.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey concludes:

Only 31% [of American voters] favor a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. Fifty-three percent (53%) oppose any such reduction. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

The president signed a treaty today with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev pledging a near one-third reduction in the nuclear weapons arsenals of both countries. Just 31% of voters trust Russia to honor the new agreement.

Only 38% think it is even somewhat likely that other countries will reduce their nuclear weapons arsenals and development in response to the actions taken by the United States. That includes just seven percent (7%) who say it’s very likely.

Fifty-four percent (54%) think reciprocal disarmament by other countries is unlikely, with 35% who say it’s not very likely and 19% who view it as not at all likely.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/55_oppose_limits_on_u_s_nuclear_response_to_attacks

9 04 2010
naegeleblog

The Most Radical President In American History?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a potential presidential candidate in 2012, has called Barack Obama “the most radical president in American history” who oversees a “secular, socialist machine.”

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_republicans_gingrich

I am not a fan of Gingrich, although I respect him and agree with his positions on a broad range of issues. There is little doubt that he is 100 percent correct in this assessment.

Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” was a shocker when I read it (twice); and it foretold of what was to come, and it is happening. He may have been sold by “Team Obama” to the American people as a relatively-moderate centrist. However, he is a far-Left radical who befriended Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. for many years—and only dropped them when it was politically necessary and expedient to do so.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

11 04 2010
naegeleblog

Obama’s Nuclear Doctrine—And Implicitly Obama Himself—Is Insane, Morally Bizarre, Loopy, Naive And Deeply Worrying

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer has a brilliant new article entitled, “Nuclear posturing, Obama-style,” which asks implicitly: “Does anyone really believe that our moral example will move other countries?”

He correctly observes:

Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place.

. . .

A nuclear posture is just that—a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice.

Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held.

. . .

Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.

Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective.

Under President Obama’s new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” explained [Obama's Secretary of Defense, Bob] Gates, then “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.”

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT-noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the United States without fear of nuclear retaliation?

The naivete is stunning. Similarly the Obama pledge to forswear development of any new nuclear warheads, indeed, to permit no replacement of aging nuclear components without the authorization of the president himself. This under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes.

On the contrary. The last quarter-century—the time of greatest superpower nuclear arms reduction—is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hellbent into the development of nuclear weapons (and India and Pakistan became declared nuclear powers).

It gets worse. The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to “continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks.” The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use.

This is deeply worrying to many small nations that for half a century relied on the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked or overrun by far more powerful neighbors. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture—and for them it’s not posture, but existential protection—what are they to think?

Fend for yourself. Get yourself your own WMDs. Go nuclear if you have to. Do you imagine they are not thinking that in the Persian Gulf?

This administration seems to believe that by restricting retaliatory threats and by downgrading our reliance on nuclear weapons, it is discouraging proliferation.

But the opposite is true. Since World War II, smaller countries have forgone the acquisition of deterrent forces—nuclear, biological and chemical—precisely because they placed their trust in the firmness, power and reliability of the American deterrent.

Seeing America retreat, they will rethink. And some will arm. There is no greater spur to hyper-proliferation than the furling of the American nuclear umbrella.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040804507_pf.html (emphasis added).

Amen!

13 04 2010
naegeleblog

Bowing To The Communists!

Obama bowing to Chinese President Hu Jintao

Obama bowing to Chinese President Hu Jintao too

The idea that Obama would bow to anyone degrades the view of America by others around the world.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-103

14 04 2010
naegeleblog

Politicians’ Biggest Fear Is An Angry Electorate, And Rightly So

From America to the UK and around the world, professional politicians are quaking in their boots, anticipating the worst in coming elections.

See, e.g., http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7096692.ece

However, as I predicted, they ain’t seen nothing yet!

See, e.g., http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html (“America and other nations are in uncharted waters; and their politicians may face backlashes from disillusioned and angry constituents that are unprecedented in modern times“) and http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/173_212/-365185-1.html

20 04 2010
naegeleblog

The Tea Party Movement Is Healthy, And Obama And The Democrats Are Running Scared

Dick Morris has a terrific article, which is worth reading, in which he castigates Bill Clinton and others for attacking the Tea Party Movement:

The silent majority is no longer silent. To make them out to be subversive is ridiculous.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/04/20/clinton-plays-the-oklahoma-city-card/; see also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704448304575196310816341450.html (“Bill Clinton plays politics with Timothy McVeigh”)

22 04 2010
naegeleblog

Obama and Biden Celebrate Earth Day by Tying Up New York Air Traffic

Matt Drudge is reporting:

Obama and Biden will board separate jets in Washington on Earth Day morning to fly 250 miles up to New York, where they will land at separate airports to attend separate events within a few miles of each other… Jets will be forced to circle and burn more fuel as they wait for the VIPs to come and go…

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/DRUDGEREPORT2010-10-4-22.pdf and http://nycaviation.com/2010/04/21/obama-and-biden-to-celebrate-earth-day-by-flying-separate-carbon-belching-jets-to-the-same-city; see also http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4962384-503544.html (“Obama Earth Day Flights Burned More Than 9,000 Gallons Of Fuel“)

24 04 2010
naegeleblog

George W. Bush: “We miss you”

A Wall Street Journal article states:

The peaceful promotion of human rights and democracy—in part by supporting the individuals risking their lives for liberty—are consonant with America’s most basic values. Standing up for them should not be a partisan issue.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703709804575202072055128934.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

Barack Obama has been dropping the ball around the world!

26 04 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Plays The Race Card

Not surprisingly, given the anti-Obama movements in America today, he is appealing to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again,” as the 2010 elections approach.

See http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Obama_seeks_to_reconnectyoung_people_AfricanAmerins_Latinos_and_women_for_2010.html?showall

29 04 2010
naegeleblog

Jews Turn Against Obama—And The New State Of Palestine

Ronald Kessler, writing for Newsmax.com, has described the “stunning turnaround, [in which] President Obama has lost roughly half of his support among Jewish voters.”

See http://newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Obama-Jews-support-Wright/2010/04/28/id/357172

First, Jewish and non-Jewish Americans should have read Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” before the 2008 elections. Had they done so, they might have been shocked with respect to a whole host of issues.

Second, as stated in another blog article of mine (see http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/israels-senseless-killings-and-war-with-iran), I believe Obama views Israel as the oppressor and the Palestinians as the oppressed, much as he viewed apartheid in South Africa; and that he views Netanyahu as the embodiment or personification of that oppression.

See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

Third, Kessler quotes one Jewish leader as saying: “[Obama] is worse than Jimmy Carter was when he was president. . . . The majority of Jews now realize that this guy is bad for Israel, let alone bad for America.”

From the perspective of Netanyahu and some Jews, this may be true. However, in terms of the long-term goal of a lasting peace in the Middle East, it may not be true. Both Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama have sought genuine peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, unlike Netanyahu.

Fourth, AIPAC, other groups (including media organizations) and individuals have been “shilling” for Netanyahu and his lackeys. Yet, Leah Rabin—who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination—saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and of course she was correct.

Fifth, Obama, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel are smart enough to know that Jewish voters will be back in the fold of voting for Obama by 2012. Historically, American Jews have not voted for Republican presidential candidates, even when they were stronger supporters of Israel than the Democrats were (e.g., George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush).

Sixth, and most importantly, Obama may join with the Europeans in declaring and recognizing a new state of “Palestine,” which would shake up the Middle East, and Obama would be hailed around the world. It would be a bold move, which none of his predecessors had the guts or political savvy to accomplish. Among other things, it would constitute recognition of the fact that Obama and the Europeans do not need Israel’s “permission” to bring it into fruition.

Netanyahu has few true non-Jewish friends in the world. Obama will seek to isolate him, and make him look like a fool; and Obama will have the whole world with him. To take down Netanyahu, to impress the world that he is “even-handed” with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian issues, and to galvanize the world into a solution that produces a Palestinian state once and for all, is “win-win” for Obama and a political triumph of enormous proportions, and he knows it.

It would be a masterstroke, and truly brilliant. Bit-by-bit Obama and his allies will peel off those who detest or hate Netanyahu. Indeed, Netanyahu is the perfect “foil” for Obama, and a “sacrificial lamb.” At most, lip service is being paid to Netanyahu and his supporters. He will be humiliated even more, and marginalized politically and shown to be irrelevant, and then ousted. Obama rolled over the GOP in the process of passing ObamaCare, and he may do the same thing with financial reform. Netanyahu will be “small potatoes,” and easy pickings for him.

Also, Obama will be making the case that he is a “friend of Israel,” all the while sticking the shiv into Netanyahu until he is gone. By humiliating Netanyahu, and making him look like an utter fool and evil, and by destroying him—and having the Israeli people call for his ouster, or forcing him to resign—Netanyahu becomes nothing more than a convenient foil or pawn in global politics, which after all is Obama’s playing field.

The destruction of Netanyahu means nothing to him. It is akin to jettisoning Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright when they stood as impediments to his goals. They were expendable; and Netanyahu is way beyond being expendable. He is hated, which means that getting rid of him is “pleasurable” for Obama.

If the state of Palestine is created, and if the world lines up behind it—and it is an enormous political triumph, which the mere creation of it will be—Obama will be basking in a greater glow than when ObamaCare was signed into law. Imagine Obama and world leaders descending on Jerusalem for the founding of the new Palestinian state. Obama understands fully what the stakes are, and how it will cement his place in history.

Netanyahu is a cipher. He can play ball, which I do not believe his narcissism will allow, or he can watch while Obama and the world “steamroll” him. Far too often, Jews have marched in “lock step,” and that is what Netanyahu is asking them to do now, like lemmings marching to the sea. He is playing on their worst fears, and their loyalty to Israel. He is a narcissist and a demagogue, who—down deep—only truly cares about himself and his own political ambitions. This is the story of his life.

. . .

This video is worth watching, because it presents some of the compelling reasons why change is so necessary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fROidpenw1E&feature=related

1 05 2010
13 05 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Bows To Putin

Clearly, Barack Obama seems bent on bowing to lots of people, including the Mayor of Tampa, Florida.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-103; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-358

However, when Obama bows to Russia’s dictator-for-life Putin, it puts America’s well being and vital national security needs on the line. The latest example is the new START treaty, which is unnecessary and not in America’s best interests, and the U.S. Senate should reject it.

We do not need such an agreement with the Russians—who cannot be trusted under any circumstances—other than existing agreements to safeguard their nuclear weapons so they do not fall into the hands of terrorists. The Russian arsenal today is nothing like the Soviet arsenal at the height of its powers and prowess, because Russia has been suffering economically.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is pleading for the treaty’s ratification by the Senate.

See, e.g., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240164048611360.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion#articleTabs%3Darticle

He began dealing with the Soviets in 1970, not the Russians; and the “Evil Empire” was subsequently “disemboweled.” It is no more; and Russia today is little more than a Third World country, and a mere shadow of what the U.S.S.R. once was. It is in America’s best interests to keep it that way.

None of this “cooperation” with Putin and his thugs prevented them from invading Georgia, and occupying portions of that country to this day. Having left the Olympic games in Beijing to begin and direct his war, Putin is the last person on the face of this earth to be trusted. We should be doing whatever we can to isolate and ultimately bring down his regime, not cooperate with it.

With all due respect for Gates, whom I like, he is trying to sell a bad treaty that the U.S. does not need. If it is ratified—and hopefully it is not—it should be scrapped on day one by the next Republican administration.

Also, Putin is rubbing Obama’s nose in it, by blocking any meaningful sanctions against Iran.

See, e.g., http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100513/ts_nm/us_russia_iran_us_1

Unfortunately, Obama’s naïveté knows no bounds when it comes to the Russians, or he would have learned not to trust Putin at all, who left George W. Bush’s side at the Olympics in Beijing to launch his war against the Georgians.

Putin needs to be removed from the world’s stage permanently; and the sooner that this is accomplished, the better.

See, e.g., http://www.theotherrussia.org/; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/

13 05 2010
naegeleblog

The Obamas’ Pettiness

Laura Bush’s new book entitled, “Spoken from the Heart,” was just released and a new Web site was created for her: http://www.laurawbush.com. The true pettiness of the Obamas becomes evident when one visits http://www.laurabush.com—without the “w” between “laura” and “bush”—and learns that it is linked to an Obama campaign Web site for 2010.

Clearly, it would have been easier and more logical for Mrs. Bush to use the URL that contains her own name, but the Obama White House and/or campaign operatives have retained it and are using it to spread their propaganda. One wonders whether they have any class at all.

13 05 2010
naegeleblog

More Travesties From Obama

The Obama Administration is moving toward completion of an agreement with Russia that would head off Moscow’s threat to halt U.S. adoptions of Russian children—which is absurd, and is merely the latest example of Barack Obama bowing to dictator-for-life Putin’s regime.

Clearly, both Russia and China have used the U.S. as dumping grounds for their “sick” children, and Americans have paid dearly for it. Until Russia addresses its own problems, all adoptions from that country should be banned; and the same thing is true of China. Enough is enough!

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703950804575242620932318554.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/problems-with-foreign-adoptions/

19 05 2010
naegeleblog

Everybody vs. Obama!

The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund has an article that says even Democrats are running against the Obama agenda.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250462424741890.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Dick Morris adds:

[I]ncumbency is a huge liability in 2010. . . . The harsh verdict on incumbents stems not so much from party preferences as from revulsion at the legislative process itself.

. . .

The unseemly bargaining, machinations, and overt buying and selling of votes that characterized the health care debate of 2009-2010 has left so sour a taste in voter mouths that they understandably dismiss those incumbents from office whenever they can.

The fact that President Obama let the Congress write the two thousand page bill in public and that Reid and Pelosi negotiated for votes in front of the media, has amplified voter anger at Congress. Watching the deals being hatched and votes switching proved too much for the electorate to stomach. Now it is expressing its discontent with the legislative shenanigans it has had to watch.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/05/19/open-season-on-incumbents/#more-960

20 05 2010
naegeleblog

Are The Republicans Masochists?

Ann Coulter has a wonderful article about the GOP, which underscores why lots of us left that party of Neanderthals ages ago.

See http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37091

Not that the Dems are any better; they aren’t. However, the GOP needs to get its act together if it wants Independents to vote for Republican candidates.

After all, Independents gave Obama the presidency and a Democrat Congress, and they are poised to give the Congress back to the GOP, as long as the party of Reagan takes time to remember that acting like buffoons does not win friends and influence people.

Morever, it does not makes Independents want to vote for you!

See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/

Veteran pollster Pat Caddell adds:

Sen. Arlen Specter lost Tuesday in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary because the Obama administration “threw him under the bus. . . .”

. . .

“The White House throws everyone under the bus, whether it’s Goldman Sachs, their largest contributor, or Reverend Wright. And the press covers up for them. I think the political reporting on this has been appalling.”

. . .

“I’ve been seeing that enthusiasm for Republicans in the general election, among Republicans, has been in decline ever since the Republicans in the Senate made such a spectacle of themselves and [appeared] so weak on both the financial bill and healthcare, an issue that still galvanizes the American people.

“I want to tell you, the Republican Party can screw up a one-car funeral.”

. . .

“It’s not Democrats going up, it’s Republicans going down. For six weeks they haven’t said a word about healthcare, yet the attitude for repealing
healthcare is overwhelming and the Republicans walked away from it.”

Asked about House Minority Leader John Boehner’s assertion that the House will seek to repeal the healthcare legislation if they regain control, Caddell responds:

“They can’t repeal it. They don’t know what they’re doing. The reason the country is upset is that it was a crime against democracy, not that it was an act of socialism or a government takeover. It was a crime against democracy in both the way it was done and the fact that they would spend this money when the country is on the verge of being bankrupt.

. . .

“Republicans are still going to win in November. But [they] better pay attention to what’s happening.”

. . .

“The only thing worse than [watching] Republicans is watching fools like Specter and Lincoln think that when they give their votes up to the White House that the White House is going to help them.”

See http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/caddell-obama-gop-murtha/2010/05/19/id/359573?s=al&promo_code=9EA2-1

20 05 2010
naegeleblog

Replace GOP Leadership?

This is what a Wall Street Journal editorial is suggesting:

The GOP lost the most important election that was held on Tuesday, and if it fails to learn from the experience the party will lose in the autumn too.

The GOP lost the one race in which a seat in Congress was up for grabs, the contest to replace the late Jack Murtha in the 12th House district in southwestern Pennsylvania.

. . .

Republicans who were counting on their voters to be more enthusiastic should be concerned that too many stayed home when it counted. Democrats have been reading for months that their majority is in peril, and Tuesday’s results showed that they know how to motivate and get out their vote.

. . .

It’s probably too late in the campaign season to replace party leaders, but someone needs to invite new thinking, and perhaps fire all the highly paid consultants. Tuesday’s defeat shows that November is going to be a hard fight, and the stakes are too high for Republicans to follow three-time losers [i.e., the House loss in Pennsylvania, and two last year in New York].

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703691804575254181251201818.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

21 05 2010
naegeleblog

America In Retreat And Decline Under Obama

Charles Krauthammer has a terrific article in the Washington Post, which details and describes America under Barack Obama:

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat—accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003885.html

No one should be surprised in the least, certainly if you have read Obama’s “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there in black and white.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

21 05 2010
naegeleblog

USA Today Is Irresponsible

I used to have great respect for USA Today, and began reading it when it started in Washington, D.C., where its headquarters was located, overlooking the Potomac River and the city of Washington.

Today, however, its editors are advocating that we bail out Barack Obama’s massive deficits by slashing our spending for national security. It was probably only a matter of time before such a chorus would begin growing, to give Obama and his lackeys cover while they try to cut our defense spending. The decline of responsible journalism from USA Today is all too evident in its opinion piece. Defense spending should not be on the chopping block, to bail out Obama and his lackeys; and USA Today is irresponsible in advocating that.

See http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-05-21-editorial21_ST_N.htm

As I wrote in a piece for the McClatchy newspapers a year ago, which is just as true today:

International terrorism and other very real national security concerns still loom, which might produce flashpoints at any time. We have enemies who seek to destroy us—a fact that is sometimes forgotten as 9/11 recedes in our memories. While it might be attractive for the president and the Democrats to take a “meat ax” to the Defense Department, it would be foolhardy to gut our military precisely when it has been performing magnificently and its continued strength is needed most. America’s economic and military strength go hand in hand. Both are indispensable ingredients of our great nation’s future strength.

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html

In two recent excellent articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, Mark Helprin and Charles Krauthammer have spelled out why such policies are wrong-headed and perhaps fatal for this great country.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/MarkHelprin-FarewelltoAmericasChinaStation.pdf and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003885.html

Yet, it appears that USA Today has turned into a left-wing “mouthpiece” for Obama, which is very unfortunate and sad.

22 05 2010
Donald Hump

Stick to the law you obviously know little to nothing about investing and even less about politics.

So out of touch it’s amazing.

22 05 2010
naegeleblog

Thank you, Donald, for your comments. :-)

25 05 2010
naegeleblog

Obama And ObamaCare Poll Numbers Plummet

The latest results of the highly-respected Rasmussen poll are the following:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for [May 25, 2010] shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20.

. . .

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. That is the lowest level of approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (emphasis added).

Also:

Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.

Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.

Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/health_care_law (emphasis added).

26 05 2010
naegeleblog

What Would Reagan Do?

The Wall Street Journal has a fine article by David Malpass entitled, “The Panic, Round Two: What Would Reagan Do?” that is worth reading.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/DavidMalpass-ThePanicRoundTwo-WhatWouldReaganDo.pdf

Yes, the panics are upon us—and there will be many of them globally—as America and the world sink deeper into what economic historians will describe 20-40 years from now as the “Great Depression II,” or by some similar label.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-great-depression-ii

David Malpass is right in asking what would Reagan do, because the former president—certainly at the top of his game—might have figured out a way of getting us out of this mess, or of somehow making it less onerous than it will be. After all, he was a creature of the “Great Depression I,” and he learned its lessons well.

Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent in December 1982, two years after his election—which was higher than any time since the first Great Depression—then dropped during the rest of Reagan’s presidency. But facts and figures do not tell the whole story of the Reagan presidency by any means: his personality and leadership qualities, and his ability to instill hope and optimism.

See, e.g., http://www.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2009/08/27/is-unemployment-the-worst-since-the-great-depression.html

One must remember too that Paul Volcker was Chairman of the Fed, and he contributed mightily to keeping the economy on an even keel, and preventing runaway inflation. He was followed by Alan Greenspan, who never saw the Housing Crisis coming, and he testified to that before a House committee. Or, as Giulio Tremonti, Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance, put it: “Greenspan was considered a master. Now we must ask ourselves whether he is not, after [Osama] bin Laden, the man who hurt America the most.” That speaks volumes, in terms of the human suffering domestically and globally, which Greenspan launched.

See http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/173_212/-365185-1.html; see also http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/

Implicit in Malpass’ fine article is the fact that Congress does not know what it is doing. Most politicians have zero training in economics, and do not understand it, and have no appreciation for economic history. They are simply interested in getting elected and reelected, and wielding power while they have it.

Malpass adds correctly:

As Reagan understood, true leadership requires stating goals and taking decisive action, in this case reducing government spending substantially enough to convince the private sector to invest again.

However, Ronald Reagan’s leadership was broader and more important than that. He instilled confidence and optimism when there had been little or none, across the board (e.g., national security, economics).

See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ronald-reagan-and-john-f-kennedy-a-question-of-character/

Sadly, Reagan’s leadership and vision are lacking now, as wrong-headed politicians lead us father down the path toward financial ruin, dashing the hopes and dreams of Americans and their counterparts worldwide. However, the days of reckoning are upon us. America and other nations are in uncharted waters; and their politicians may face backlashes from disillusioned and angry constituents that are unprecedented in modern times. We are beginning to see that now.

Also, Barack Obama has zero experience with respect to economic and a plethora of other issues. Americans should read (or reread) his “Dreams from My Father,” and realize that he is one of the most “uneducated” presidents in American history, in terms of real-world issues. This is not said by way of condemnation, but as a fact.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

At best he is an academic. Perhaps more importantly, he and his advisers are “a bunch of academics” and ideologues, who have pre-set ideas about how the world should function, which do not square with reality. In many ways, they are the most ill-equipped individuals to confront and understand the “Great Depression II,” much get us through it.

I cannot think of another group that is so ill-equipped to deal with critical issues facing America and the world (e.g., two wars, the risk of any EMP or other devastating attack, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, the Great Depression II). Fortunately, no calamities hit the Clinton years. We are not and will not be so lucky this time around.

Lastly, Ronald Reagan was blessed—yes, blessed by God. He had innate wisdom and a reservoir of faith, confidence, optimism and good will, and collective life experiences that allowed him to do just the right thing at the right time. Clearly, the fall of the “Evil Empire” was a shining achievement, but there were many many others too.

26 05 2010
naegeleblog

Barack Obama: The Lowest Approval Rating For This President

The highly-respected Rasmussen polling organization is reporting:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for [May 26, 2010] shows that 23% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22. That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this president.

Enthusiasm for the president among Democrats, which bounced following passage of the health care law, has faded again. Just 48% of those in the president’s party now Strongly Approve of Obama’s performance. That’s down from 65% earlier.

Among men, 20% Strongly Approve and 50% Strongly Disapprove. Among women, those numbers are 27% and 40%.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (emphasis added).

26 05 2010
naegeleblog

And The Birth Certificate Issue Goes On And On . . .

Surely, the White House would love to see this vexing issue go away once and for all; and if—as reported—one actually exists in Honolulu, it should have been released ages ago. Instead, the discussion continues, with the latest twist being that Congressman Barney Frank just demanded the release of the birth certificate of Hawaii’s new GOP congressman, Charles Djou.

As the article cited below states: “[U]nlike the commander-in-chief, as Frank knows, being born outside the U.S. does not preclude you from becoming a member of Congress.” Frank’s comments were tongue-in-cheek, but some of the comments beneath the article were telling, poignant and none-too-kind:

“How stupid can Barney be to bring this up and draw more attention to Obama’s utter lack of credentials.”

“Barney Frank is gay… ‘nuf said.”

“Barney is the best reason for abortion that I can think of.”

“Would Barney be doing this if [Djou] was gay or white? Methinks I smells racism.”

“”Tongue firmly in cheek” …who’s?”

“Conservatives did not start the Birther movement, a Hillary Clinton supporter did.”

See http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/4309-barney-frank-wants-to-see-rep-djous-birth-certificate

27 05 2010
naegeleblog

Obama’s Katrina, Or Worse?

I am a critic of Barack Obama’s policies in many respects (e.g., national security, fiscal policies, ObamaCare). However, he is being blamed for the Gulf Coast oil spill, just as George W. Bush was blamed for the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, and I believe it is wrong to blame either president.

Bush was right to fly over Katrina and view the devastation from the air, rather than create chaos on the ground while traffic was tied up by presidential motorcades, etc. In the end, his response was more than adequate, and he was unjustly maligned. He did not cause Katrina, any more than Obama caused the oil spill.

Yes, the oil spill should not have happened, but it makes no sense to shut down offshore drilling in its wake. We need oil, and offshore drilling happens every day around the world without a glitch. The Gulf Coast oil spill is a tragic aberration, just as Katrina and the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off the Alaskan coast were enormous tragedies.

. . .

However, if the Democrats tarred Bush for Katrina, the GOP has every right to tar Obama for the Gulf Coast spill. There is political symmetry to that happening. :-)

See http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-05-27-Spill-poll_N.htm

. . .

Peggy Noonan has an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal, which states in part:

If the well was plugged tomorrow, the damage will already have been done.

The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency. He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him. When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. They were never going to blame only BP, or trust it.

I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: “Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust.” Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: “We pay so much for the government and it can’t cap an undersea oil well!”

This is what happened with Katrina, and Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn’t like about the Bush administration, everything it didn’t like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush’s incompetence and conservatives’ failure to “believe in government.” But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.

. . .

What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama’s standing with Democrats. They don’t love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president’s Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.

The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration. . . .

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270950789108846.html (emphasis added); see also http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052702988.html (Charles Krauthammer: “[W]hen you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn’t be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides“)

28 05 2010
naegeleblog

The Sestak Criminal Scandal Ensnaring Obama, Emanuel And Bill Clinton

In a hard-hitting editorial, the Wall Street Journal is incredulous that Barack Obama and his White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel would enlist former President Bill Clinton to intercede on their behalf, in trying to talk Democrat Congressman Joe Sestak out of opposing Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate primary—which Sestak just won:

So a two-term President who is now ambassador to the world is running errands for the White House chief of staff. . . .

. . .

And the Congressman was supposed to give up his reasonable chance at a U.S. Senate seat for such a sinecure?

. . .

It’s possible that all we really have here is a case of the Obama White House playing Washington politics as usual, which the White House refused to admit for three months because this is what Mr. Obama promised he would not do if he became President. However, this is clearly what he hired Mr. Emanuel to do for him, and given his ethical record Mr. Clinton was the perfect political cutout. So much for the most transparent Administration in history.

Clearly what transpired has potential criminal repercussions because, as the Journal states, “an act of interfering in an election . . . would constitute a felony if it was direct enough.”

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704596504575272702149862906.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

Ken Starr—the moron of all morons—tried to tag Bill Clinton criminally, but was never able to do it. Perhaps he will be tagged here, along with Obama and Emanuel.

The “Clintonistas” (e.g., James Carville) have been criticizing Obama with respect to his handling of the Gulf Coast oil spill, to help Hillary Clinton in the future; and Obama and Emanuel have turned the tables on them by implicating Bill Clinton in the Sestak criminal scandal.

Former Clinton strategist Dick Morris contends:

The Pennsylvania Attorney General, Tom Corbett—who is the Republican nominee for Governor this year—has ample jurisdiction to convene a grand jury to get to the bottom of the scandal and answer the key questions:

1. Who offered a job to Sestak?

2. What job was proffered?

3. And did the president know of the offer?

. . .

The people of the United States and, particularly the people of Pennsylvania, want these questions to be answered honestly. They will not settle for a Democratic stonewall that refuses to let the truth emerge.

. . .

Corbett should make it possible for the truth to emerge by convening a grand jury and summoning Sestak, Emanuel, and anyone else who may have been involved [e.g., Obama, Clinton] to answer questions under oath.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/05/27/penn-ag-tom-corbett-should-empanel-grand-jury-in-sestak-affair/#more-1026; see also http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/how-the-sestak-job-offer-becam.html

How the worm turns. :-)

29 05 2010
naegeleblog

Thank God!

The highly-respected Rasmussen polling organization is reporting:

This Memorial Day, nearly three-out-of-four Americans (74%) have a favorable opinion of the U.S. military, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 12% hold an unfavorable opinion, and 13% are not sure.

These figures have held steady for the past two years.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/may_2010/74_have_favorable_opinion_of_u_s_military

In the wake of what our Vietnam veterans went through, it is wonderful to see the support for our military, especially with two wars in progress, one of which is winding down.

Barack Obama ought to heed these results, and do nothing to weaken our military; and in fact, he should take all steps necessary to strengthen it in light of deadly challenges from China, Russia, North Korea, terrorists and elsewhere.

See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/documents/MarkHelprin-FarewelltoAmericasChinaStation.pdf and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/

2 06 2010
naegeleblog

Morris: Obama Doesn’t Have A Clue

Dick Morris has a new article that is worth reading, in which he states:

Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.

Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores—one from the east and the other from the south—and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.

. . .

[W]e have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.

Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?

See http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/100913-obama-doesnt-have-a-clue

This should not come as a surprise to anyone. He was a “community organizer,” and not a very good one. Read (or reread) his book, “Dreams from My Father.” He has no training in economics or any business experience, nor any experience with respect to national security matters. Like those on Capitol Hill, he is a professional politician who learned how to get elected, and to wield power for good or evil. Nothing more.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

6 06 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Lifts Whaling Ban

It has been reported:

The Obama administration is leading an effort within the International Whaling Commission to lift a 24-year international ban on commercial whaling for Japan, Norway and Iceland, the remaining three countries in the 88-member commission that still hunt whales.

See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/05/obama-backing-deal-lift-global-ban-commercial-whaling/

If so, Obama should be driven from office for this and other reasons (e.g., ObamaCare, saddling future generations with unprecedented debt burdens, lessening our national defense capabilities). The complete ban that was championed by Ronald Reagan must remain in effect, and be enforced stringently worldwide.

7 06 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Includes Deep Defense Cuts In His Budget

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard and Fox News has written in the Wall Street Journal:

For Mr. Obama, serious spending cuts are the only sensible means of dealing with a potential debt crisis or at least an unsustainable fiscal situation. However, he may not be able to rely on reductions in military spending, as liberal Democrats usually prefer. Mr. Obama has already included deep defense cuts in his budget, and Republicans are unlikely to go along with even deeper cuts.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703704575276931429180508.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

More than a year ago, I wrote:

International terrorism and other very real national security concerns still loom, which might produce flashpoints at any time. We have enemies who seek to destroy us—a fact that is sometimes forgotten as 9/11 recedes in our memories. While it might be attractive for the president and the Democrats to take a “meat ax” to the Defense Department, it would be foolhardy to gut our military precisely when it has been performing magnificently and its continued strength is needed most. America’s economic and military strength go hand in hand. Both are indispensable ingredients of our great nation’s future strength.

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html

The chickens are coming home to roost, and it is time to throw Obama and the Democrats out of office.

9 06 2010
naegeleblog

Obama’s Distant Relation To America

The Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz has an op-ed piece that is worth reading.

I have always thought that she was terrific, much like Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post. Sure, both of them get it wrong at times, but by and large they are right on the money. Her latest article is superb and no exception.

These are the most challenging of times for even the most astute of America’s presidents, yet our “Community-Organizer-In-Chief” has no experience whatsoever. Moreover, his core beliefs were shaped by his life in Hawaii and Indonesia, and his gut instincts are not in sync with those of mainstream America. He is a “representative at large of the world community” precisely because he never set foot on the U.S. mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

It is truly as if he was from another planet at times. Or, in Rabinowitz’s words: “He is the alien in the White House.” Read (or reread) his “Dreams from My Father,” and this will be ever more evident. Until recently, he has been an emperor with “new clothes,” but now we realize fully—as we should have before the elections of 2008—”his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.”

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

To make matters worse, we are staring into the face of the “Great Depression II,” which will be labeled as such by economic historians 20-40 years from now. Also, we are facing national security issues that might change the course of history dramatically at any moment (e.g., China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, terrorist groups, an EMP Attack).

14 06 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Is A Total Demagogue By Likening The Gulf Environmental Disaster To 9/11

Barack Obama is pathetic in trying to deflect Americans’ attention and anger from his own inadequacies and those of his administration, and equating the consequences of the Gulf oil spill to 9/11. Such crass and brazen demagoguery is among the grounds why he should be removed from office. The American people are tired of his lying and cheating.

See http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.63a128958094fb519016d188cf557e83.101&show_article=1; see also http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1996441,00.html (Residents of the Florida Keys act, while the buffoons of the Obama Administration do not)

17 06 2010
naegeleblog

Barack Obama Must Be Removed From Office For Weakening America’s Missile Defenses Alone

Obama and his lackeys have taken steps for a long time now to weaken America’s missile defenses, which is a tragedy and grounds for his impeachment and removal from office. Among other things, the Washington Times’ Bill Gertz writes:

The Obama administration is secretly working with Russia to conclude an agreement that many officials fear will limit U.S. missile defenses, a key objective of Moscow since it opposed plans for a U.S. missile defense interceptor base in Eastern Europe, according to American officials involved in arms control issues.

. . .

The secret talks and possible agreement have triggered alarm among pro-missile defense advocates who are concerned that the administration, in its effort to “reset” ties with Moscow, will make further concessions constraining current and future missile defenses.

Pro-arms-control officials within the administration dislike missile defenses, viewing them as an impediment to offensive arms agreements.

See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/16/inside-the-ring-382424672/; see also http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_arms_treaty_5

Russia is essentially a Third World country, and it should be kept that way. It is America’s enemy, and must be treated as such; and what Obama and his lackeys have been doing is nothing short of criminal. They are weakening America’s ability to defend itself.

Also, Russia’s killer Putin is touting a new stealth fighter jet, which he claims “will be superior to our main competitor, [America's] F-22, in terms of maneuverability, weaponry and range. . . .” How outrageous for Obama to make any concessions to the Russians, or to enter into treaties with it that would weaken our great country.

See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65G64820100617?type=politicsNews; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/

18 06 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Is America’s Dreamer In Chief, Or Far Far Worse

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer has a fine article about Obama’s disastrous energy policies, which is worth reading. In it, he states:

We haven’t run out of safer and more easily accessible sources of oil. We’ve been run off them by environmentalists. They prefer to dream green instead.

Obama is dreamer in chief: He wants to take us to this green future “even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet precisely know how we’re going to get there.” Here’s the offer: Tax carbon, spend trillions and put government in control of the energy economy — and he will take you he knows not where, by way of a road he knows not which.

That’s why Tuesday’s speech was received with such consternation. It was so untethered from reality. The gulf is gushing, and the president is talking mystery roads to unknown destinations. That passes for vision, and vision is Obama’s thing. It sure beats cleaning up beaches.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061704209.html

This is among the many reasons why Obama must be removed from the presidency.

19 06 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Loathes the British, Colonialism And The Israelis

An article of mine explains Barack Obama’s feelings about the British and Colonialism, which are clear when one reads his book, “Dreams from My Father.” He hated apartheid too, which he equates with the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

UK’s Daily Mail has an interesting article, which states in part:

The Kenyan bowed his head as his captors opened the prison cell door to deliver another brutal whipping—a punishment meted out after he was accused of taking part in the independence movement against the British colonial authorities.

The man had been working as a cook for a British Army officer. And his name? Hussein Onyango Obama—President Barack Obama’s paternal grandfather.

He had been arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years in a high-security prison. There, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence. They say British soldiers used torture in an effort to get him to reveal rebel secrets.

. . .

[T]hese bitter tales form part of the Obama family folklore, and seem to have left the U.S. President with a vehemently anti-British outlook.

So has Obama’s memory of his grandfather’s treatment influenced his aggressive reaction to BP over its handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

The [UK] Government has become increasingly concerned by Obama’s anti-British rhetoric. For example, he has often referred to the global company as ‘British Petroleum’, although it changed its name to BP more than a decade ago, and even compared the disaster to 9/11.

But this is not the first time he has paid little heed to the so-called Special Relationship. When he entered the Oval office, he immediately returned a bust of Winston Churchill that was on loan from Britain.

And during the recent stand-off between Britain and Argentina over oil rights around the Falkland Islands, America was less than supportive.

. . .

For some time, [Hussein Onyango Obama] was too traumatised to speak about his experiences. Mrs Onyango told her grandson: ‘From that day on, I saw that he was now an old man.’ This week she told us: ‘My husband rarely spoke about the British and colonial rule after his arrest. All I know is that he hated them.

‘After serving the British very diligently, they turned him into enemy number one.

‘His awful tales of his experiences at the British torture chambers always moved his emotions. He wondered why the British never respected African culture.

. . .

The old man would shed tears at the mention of the British and colonial rule. He simply hated them.’

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287828/Revealed-Why-President-Obama-loathes-British.html

This article is consistent with Obama’s “Dreams from My Father.”

20 06 2010
naegeleblog

The End Of Barack Obama

Yes, this is the title of the article above, but it is also being echoed in the comments of others. For example, Mort Zuckerman—the owner, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of US News and World Report—says that the world sees Obama as incompetent and an amateur; and that while the president may be well-intentioned, he can’t walk the walk on the world stage.

See http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/06/18/mort-zuckerman-world-sees-obama-as-incompetent-and-amateur_print.htm

Germany’s highly-respected Der Spiegel says that Obama is in danger of turning into an idealistic, one-term president like Jimmy Carter, which echoes what I wrote in my article above.

See http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,701279,00.html

22 06 2010
naegeleblog

Obama’s Ineffectual And Chaotic Federal Response

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article that contrasts George W. Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina with Barack Obama’s response to the Gulf oil spill, which is worth reading.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704895204575320560421570360.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews

24 06 2010
naegeleblog

Turkey, Afghanistan And Tectonic Plates

Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-at-large of The Washington Times and of United Press International, has a terrific new article about Turkey vis-à-vis NATO, the EU, Israel, Iran and Afghanistan—and Barack Obama and his administration—which is worth reading. In it, he writes:

[Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan], like most world leaders, had high hopes for President Obama. But now they see he is unable to master a dysfunctional system of government; that he may lose one or even both houses of Congress in November; and that Afghanistan appears to be headed for another debacle comparable to Vietnam circa 1975 (when Congress stripped South Vietnam of military aid, in effect inviting North Vietnam to administer the coup de grace).

See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/23/talking-turkey-43683123/print/

Clearly, the handwriting is on the wall with respect to Obama.

24 06 2010
naegeleblog

Potential Bombshell: Obama Knew Of Blagojevich Plot

John Harris, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s chief of staff, testified in federal court that he believed Barack Obama knew of Blagojevich’s plot to win himself a presidential Cabinet post in exchange for appointing Obama confidant and key White House adviser Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate.

See http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/2427402,CST-NWS-BLAGO24.article

29 06 2010
naegeleblog

Obama And Guantanamo

According to the highly-respected Rasmussen polling organization, a hot issue during the closing months of the Bush presidency and on the 2008 campaign trail has faded: namely, the prison camp for terrorists at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba. Barack Obama’s vow to close the prison seems to be on indefinite hold.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 36 percent of American voters agree with the president’s decision to close Guantanamo, Obama’s first major act upon taking office. Fifty-four percent disagree with that decision.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2010/administration_apparently_in_no_hurry_but_54_still_oppose_closing_of_guantanamo

30 06 2010
naegeleblog

Putin Should Be Dealt With Quickly And Summarily, Just Like Hitler Should Have Been

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Russia’s killer Vladimir Putin has criticized U.S. law enforcement, even as his government acknowledged that its citizens were among the 11 people that American authorities charged were part of a long-running spy operation.

In its article, the Journal states:

“I do not believe this will affect the resetting of our relationship with Russia,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at a briefing in Washington.

He said Mr. Obama was aware of the alleged spy ring, but the president didn’t discuss the topic in face-to-face meetings last week with [Russian President Dmitry Medvedev].

. . .

Several Russian analysts said the scandal could hinder, or at least delay, Senate ratification of a new treaty between the U.S. and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals. The new START accord, signed by Messrs. Obama and Medvedev in April, is the biggest achievement so far in Mr. Obama’s policy toward Moscow, but the treaty faces skepticism among Senate Republicans.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704103904575337041000860662.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews

Obama and Gibbs are fools, who should be removed from public office for their traitorous actions; and the START treaty should not be ratified, but should die in the Senate.

30 06 2010
naegeleblog

The Failure Of Obama’s Economic Programs

The Wall Street Journal has a fine article entitled, “Why Obamanomics Has Failed.” which is worth reading.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEFifthNews

1 07 2010
naegeleblog

Hillary Clinton For President In 2012?

Political pundit and former Bill Clinton adviser, Dick Morris, has an interesting article describing how the former president and his Secretary of State wife, Hillary, are positioning themselves for a possible run against Barack Obama in 2012, which is worth reading.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/06/30/clintons-distance-themselves-from-obama/#more-1131

4 07 2010
naegeleblog

Scorn On The Fourth Of July: Obama Divides Nation . . .

This is the headline from the Drudge Report on July 4, 2010, which refers us to the following polling data:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Also, the Washington Post is reporting:

With the November midterm elections less than four months away, Obama’s standing among white voters has sunk—leading some party strategists to fret that the president’s erosion—and the party’s—could adversely affect Democrats’ chances of holding on to their House and Senate majorities.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/04/AR2010070403988.html

6 07 2010
naegeleblog

Biden Is A Buffoon, Fool, Wacko, And A Liar . . .

. . . But that has been true ever since he became Vice President. Clearly, there is a screw loose. He fabricates stories and facts that never existed, and he is a disgrace to the United States.

His latest lie involves pinning any credit at all on Obama for American successes in Iraq, which are a result of George W. Bush’s decision making and presidency, and have nothing to do with Obama, who opposed the Bush policies before he became president.

See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39372.html

6 07 2010
naegeleblog

Bravo! Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Will Wait To Retire Until Obama Is Gone

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says he is not going away anytime soon, which is terrific news. Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan; and he is a swing voter on the Court who sides with its conservatives.

Hopefully Obama is gone no later than January of 2013.

See http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/06/2010-07-06_holdin_court_at_73_justice_kennedy_tells_pals_hes_not_retiring_for_years__thats_.html

Also, Obama’s agenda on healthcare and financial regulation may be on a collision course with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. As a Los Angeles Times’ article states:

The president and congressional Democrats have embarked on an ambitious drive to regulate corporations, banks, health insurers and the energy industry. But the high court, with [Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.] increasingly in control, will have the final word on those regulatory laws.

See http://www.latimes.com/news/health/la-na-court-roberts-obama-20100706,0,7184862.story

The Court will provide checks and balances on Obama’s agenda, and rightly so.

8 07 2010
naegeleblog

The Grand “Obama Experiment” May Be Finished Already

Barack Obama may be in the process of disappearing into history. The all-important Independent swing-voting block (i.e., approximately 35 percent of the American electorate)—of which I am proudly one, and have been for at least 20 years—is deserting him en masse.

See, e.g., http://www.gallup.com/poll/141131/Obama-Job-Approval-Rating-Down-Among-Independents.aspx (“Obama Job Approval Rating Down to 38% Among Independents”)

They swung in his favor to give him the presidency, and they are swinging against him now. He is “DOA” for most Independents, and that is only apt to get far worse during the balance of his presidency, which may not last beyond January of 2013. Obviously the GOP must find a standard bearer to run against him; however, for growing numbers of Americans—Independents, Republicans, conservative Democrats—the grand “Obama experiment” is finished already.

See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/

8 07 2010
naegeleblog

The Obama Depression

Political pundit and former Bill Clinton adviser, Dick Morris, has penned a hard-hitting article in which he states:

History will probably record the Obama Administration of 2009-2013 (hopefully his only time in office) as one long recession/depression just as we see the Hoover Administration of 1929-1933.

. . .

As the debt crisis that started in Greece spreads to Europe and across the ocean, the United States’ high level of deficit spending makes us particularly vulnerable. It was recognition of that weakness that led Europeans to reduce their deficits and cut back their spending, oblivious to Obama’s request that they increase their outlays. But Obama continues his big spending and big borrowing ways in the U.S.

To this we need to add the climate of uncertainty that the president’s changes have engendered. The prospect of big tax hikes ahead in 2011 (beyond just the simple repeal of the upper income Bush tax cuts), the uncertainty in the credit markets due to the passage of the financial regulation bill, and the questions raised by possible cap and trade legislation all militate against new investment or borrowing and are inducing corporations and banks to hoard cash which might, otherwise, have stimulated economic growth.

Politically, Obama was likely to lose Congress even before this disaster hit. Now, Rasmussen has four Democratic Senate seats definitely going Republican (Arkansas, North Dakota, Indiana, and Delaware) with six more rated as tossups (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado, Nevada, Washington State, and Wisconsin). California is also a likely Republican pickup. Rasmussen rates four GOP Senate seats as tossup (Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and New Hampshire), but the Democrats are unlikely to win any of them.

If the GOP picks up the seats it is likely to win, it will control the Senate by 52-48. And, in the House, the likelihood of a Republican victory is even more significant.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/07/07/economic-numbers-hurting-obama/#more-1141 ; see also http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/07/07/the-left-wing-spiral-trap/#more-1143

9 07 2010
naegeleblog

Crush Obama And The Democrats In November!

The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, who is usually right on target, is reporting that the congressional Democrats have massive legislative plans for the lame-duck session of Congress after the November elections.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704293604575343262629361470.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Having enacted ObamaCare—despite overwhelming opposition of the American people—which must be gutted (e.g., never funded) or repealed, the Democrats plan similar outrages at the end of this year.

Hence, come November, Republicans and Independents must join together to crush the Democrats in Congress and defeat their legislative plans and those of Barack Obama. He must become one of the most politically-emasculated lame-duck presidents in American history, and prevented from doing any more damage to this great nation before he is unceremoniously thrown out of office.

See also http://www.gallup.com/poll/141131/Obama-Job-Approval-Rating-Down-Among-Independents.aspx (“Obama Job Approval Rating Down to 38% Among Independents”)

28 07 2010
naegeleblog

Having Lost All Republicans And Almost All Independents, Obama Is Shedding Democrats Too

This is the conclusion that political pundit and former Bill Clinton adviser Dick Morris reaches in a carefully-reasoned article, which is worth reading.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/07/28/leaked-report-hurts-obama/#more-1230

2 08 2010
naegeleblog

48% Blame Obama For Bad Economy, 47% Blame Bush

For the first time since Barack Obama assumed the presidency, voters see his policies as equally or more to blame than those of George W. Bush for the nation’s economic problems.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/august_2010/48_blame_obama_for_bad_economy_47_blame_bush

Despite the inherent wisdom of the American people, they are at least partially wrong with respect to this issue. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is to blame for what is happening economically, both in the United States and globally. The tsunami that he unleashed cannot be restrained by government policies, which at most affect it at the margins. Such policies can and are making things worse (e.g., the massive deficits that Obama has created).

As Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance, Giulio Tremonti, has said:

Greenspan was considered a master. Now we must ask ourselves whether he is not, after [Osama] bin Laden, the man who hurt America the most.

That speaks volumes.

See http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/173_212/-365185-1.html; see also http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html and http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/

3 08 2010
naegeleblog

Political Class And Mainstream America See America’s Future Through Different Glasses

According to the highly-respected Rasmussen polling organization, 67 percent of America’s “Political Class” believe the country is heading in the right direction, while 84 percent of “Mainstream Americans” disagree. Similarly:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 67% of Political Class voters believe the United States is generally heading in the right direction. However, things look a lot different to Mainstream Americans. Among these voters, 84% say the country has gotten off on the wrong track.

Twenty-four percent (24%) of Mainstream voters consider fiscal policy issues such as taxes and government spending to be the most important issue facing the nation today. Just two percent (2%) of Political Class voters agree.

With a gap that wide, it’s not surprising that 68% of voters believe the Political Class doesn’t care what most Americans think. Fifty-nine percent (59%) are embarrassed by the behavior of the Political Class.

Just 23% believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed.

Most voters believe that cutting government spending and reducing deficits is good for the economy. The only group that disagrees is America’s Political Class.

This political divide may augur for major changes in November’s elections and beyond.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/67_of_political_class_say_u_s_heading_in_right_direction_84_of_mainstream_disagrees

In another very illuminating Rasmussen poll, just 20 percent of American voters believe that most members of Congress can be trusted with top secret national security information. That speaks volumes too.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/60_say_most_in_congress_can_t_be_trusted_with_top_secret_information

4 08 2010
naegeleblog

Once Democrats Start Abandoning Obama, There Is No Bottom To His Ratings

In an excellent new article, political pundit and former Bill Clinton adviser, Dick Morris, paints a potentially-ominous picture of the future for Barack Obama and his Democrats. Dick’s article is worth reading.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/08/04/wikileaks-afghan-papers-killing-obama/#more-1237

4 08 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Celebrates Birthday Alone In U.S., While Wife Jets Off To Spain On Air Force Two

As the Daily Mail states:

[Michelle Obama] is on a four-day visit and will be staying at the five-star Villa Padierna, rated as one of the world’s top 30 hotels, with 40 friends. The party has reserved 60 rooms.

See, e.g., http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1300240/Michelle-Obama-jets-Marbella-5-star-holiday-daughter-Sasha.html

To what extent are the American taxpayers footing her bills, in this time of economic chaos and uncertainty for so many families?

See, e.g., http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/04/2010-08-04_material_girl_michelle_obama_is_a_modernday_marie_antoinette_on_a_glitzy_spanish.html (“Material girl Michelle Obama is a modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1300604/Michelle-Obama-modern-day-Marie-Antoinette-First-Lady-slammed-lavish-Marbella-holiday.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1300852/Spanish-police-close-public-beach-Michelle-Obamas-250k-Spanish-holiday.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1301302/Michelle-Obama-lunches-Spains-royal-family-backlash-extravagant-holiday-continues-home.html and http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/08/11/michelles-travels-will-trigger-backlash/#more-1250

7 08 2010
naegeleblog

Collapse And Overt Racism

All one has to do is read the brazenly-racist comments beneath an online Yahoo! News article about Tiger Woods’ performance at the 2010 Bridgestone Invitational golf tournament—which on a second reading, were assiduously scrubbed by Yahoo!—to realize that many Americans are rejoicing at his collapse. The gloves have come off, and overt racist remarks are being applied to him by both women and men. No longer is he the “golden boy” of golf that he once was; and he may never regain his reputation or consistent playing ability.

Compare http://www.naegele.com/documents/TigerWoodscardscareerworstscoreatFirestone.pdf with http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100805/sp_wl_afp/golfuspgawgcwoods_20100805222619; see also http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/pga/2010-08-08-bridgestone-invitational-tiger-woods_N.htm (his golf game is collapsing) and http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news?slug=ap-timdahlberg-080710 (“Woods seems lost with no way out . . . His game is gone. And the increasing reality is, it may not come back”)

As the U.S. economy sinks farther, and as the war in Afghanistan drags on, and as more Americans become disenchanted with Barack Obama’s performance as president, his popularity may fall dramatically and overt racism may raise its ugly head with respect to him too.

11 08 2010
naegeleblog

The Obama Strategy Has Lost The Consent Of The Governed

Americans are in open rebellion against the policies of Barack Obama; and before too long, they may be in open rebellion against the man himself, just as they were against another war-time president, Lyndon Johnson, who could not run for reelection in 1968. Will the same fate befall Obama, owing to the Afghan war, the U.S. economy, ObamaCare—which a majority of Americans want repealed—and a whole host of other issues?

Fouad Ajami addresses these tough issues in a hard-hitting Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, which is worth reading. Among other things, he states:”[Obama] had never run anything in his entire life.” Perhaps most importantly, he had never been truly successful at anything other than writing, speaking, campaigning, politics and getting elected—being a professional politician. However, a growing number of Americans have enormous contempt for the political class, and for good reasons; and Obama may become the “poster child” for their anger.

Ajami adds:

The administration would . . . insist on the primacy of its own judgment.

. . .

It was canonical to this administration and its functionaries that they were handed a broken nation, that it was theirs to repair, that it was theirs to tax and reshape to their preferences.

. . .

Big as Reagan’s mandate was, in two elections, the man was never bigger than his county. There was never narcissism or a bloated sense of personal destiny in him. He gloried in the country, and drew sustenance from its heroic deeds and its capacity for recovery. No political class rode with him to power anxious to lay its hands on the nation’s treasure, eager to supplant the forces of the market with its own economic preferences.

. . .

Mr. Obama will mark time [as a lame-duck president, just as Johnson did prior to the 1968 elections].

. . .

It is in the nature of charisma that it rises out of thin air, out of need and distress, and then dissipates when the magic fails. The country has had its fill with a scapegoating that knows no end from a president who had vowed to break with recriminations and partisanship. The magic of 2008 can’t be recreated. . . . Slowly, the nation has recovered its poise. There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer—a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704164904575421363005578460.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

The highly-respected Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for August 10, 2010 shows that 46 percent of America’s voters Strongly Disapprove of the way that Obama is performing his role as president, while only 24 percent Strongly Approve, giving Obama a negative Presidential Approval Index rating of -22. This matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this president.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Political pundit and former Bill Clinton adviser adds:

[T]his year’s elections will be a total and complete disaster for the Democratic Party. In fact, it will amount to the obliteration of an entire generation of Democratic officeholders.

. . .

A wipeout of this magnitude cannot be explained, alone, by Obama’s ratings or his policies. He has fallen sharply since he took office, but even ratings in the 40s do not explain this type of result. It is increasingly obvious that Congress has earned much of this disaster by itself, quite unrelated to Obama. The vision of the deal-making that accompanied healthcare was too disgusting for the average American to stomach. And now the failure of the Congress to expel Reps. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) underscores its inability to police itself.

See http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/113395-a-contract-with-america-for-2010 (including Morris’ recommendations for Capitol Hill reforms)

18 08 2010
naegeleblog

Russia In Talks To Supply Helicopters To NATO

This is outrageous!

The Wall Street Journal is reporting:

Russia is negotiating the sale of about 20 helicopters for Afghanistan, stepping up efforts to help the country’s U.S.-backed government battle the Taliban insurgency and drug traffickers.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/RussiainTalkstoSupplyHelicopterstoNATO-WSJ.com.pdf

Are we missing something? Isn’t this the same Russia that invaded and destroyed Afghanistan and killed its people, and subjected others to lives of misery? Yes, the former Soviet Union and Russia are essentially one and the same; and Putin was a KGB operative all of his life before he entered politics and became Russia’s dictator-for-life.

Russia is not America’s friend, or a friend of the Afghan people or NATO. It is our enemy, and should be treated as such. The sooner that Putin and his thugs are eliminated permanently, the better this world will be!

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer and http://www.theotherrussia.org/

With respect to the Afghan drug trade that is discussed in the Journal article, I wrote in my article about Afghanistan:

We began in Afghanistan militarily shortly after 9/11, and were successful in taking over the country and ousting the Taliban. The poppy crops should have been eradicated then, so the worldwide supply of heroin would have been reduced dramatically. The Associated Press reported on November 23, 2009: “The poppy crop in Afghanistan, which produces 90 percent of the world’s supply of opium, is linked to corruption, addiction and a drug trade that bankrolls the Taliban insurgency.” Opium poppies are the raw ingredient in making heroin.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/

Query whether any American or foreign politician, such as Barack Obama, has the guts to take a strong stand: the poppy crops must be eradicated!

27 08 2010
naegeleblog

Obama And The Democrats WIll Play The Race Card

Charles Krauthammer has a terrific article in the Washington Post—one of his best, and he is normally brilliant—in which he asserts that Barack Obama and the Democrats are both panicking and contemptuous. When all else fails, they will be playing the race card out of desperation.

It is a “must read.”

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html

27 08 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Halts Prosecution Of USS Cole Bomber

The Washington Post is reporting:

The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606353.html

If true, Barack Obama should be removed from office now (e.g., impeachment); and Americans should not have to wait until 2012 to throw him out of office. This is an unpardonable travesty, in addition to his mishandling of the economy, his war in Afghanistan, ObamaCare, and everything else that he has touched.

______

Update

The Wall Street Journal has a fine editorial that is worth reading, which states:

However well our troops do on the battlefield, a reality of modern times is that the U.S. can still lose the war on terror in the courtroom. Two separate cases this week show that lawfare is alive and dangerous.

Then, it cites the Washington Post article above, and continues:

The [second] suit claims Yemen is not a foreign battlefield like Iraq or Afghanistan, and thus [Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. cleric turned al Qaeda operative who is now thought to be hiding in Yemen] should be entitled to due process. It is asking a federal district court to grant an injunction and subject Defense and CIA drone strikes to judicial review.

. . .

[T]he drone strikes are part of the President’s core war-fighting powers under the Constitution. The authority to launch combat operations against enemies, and how to carry them out, unquestionably belongs to the Commander in Chief.

Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11, and it’s impossible to believe it didn’t have men like al-Awlaki in mind. . . . Should al-Awlaki be read a Miranda warning before the U.S. launches the missile?

The question may sound absurd, but it’s only logical given the limits the legal left wants to put on the U.S. ability to kill terrorists. The Obama Administration has an obligation to defend the President’s war powers against this assault, and a good first step would be to proceed with the al-Nashiri trial.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/TheLawfareWars-WSJ.com.pdf

Amen! As I wrote in comments for the Journal more than four years ago entitled, “A Judge Roy Bean Ethos Too Often Guides Judiciary,” about abolishing FISA:

As a practicing lawyer for 40 years, I believe the idea of entrusting any aspect of our national security to the judiciary is absurd. In both federal and state courts, it is tantamount to “Law West of the Pecos by Judge Roy Bean.” In Bean’s court, the law was what he said it was; in 21st century courts that attitude is still too often true of arbitrary decisions by an unchecked judiciary. Our Founding Fathers gave scant attention to providing necessary checks, which has come back to haunt us.

Also, because of the enormous case backlog in our federal courts, too often young law clerks are making decisions that judges should make, which is outrageous and irresponsible. Thus it is not surprising to realize how little some federal judges know about the cases that are before them—for example, when oral arguments occur.

Equally disturbing is the fact that some members of the federal judiciary seem to believe that both the executive and legislative branches of government are subservient to the judiciary. This merely reflects the fact that far too often judges are arrogant, self-righteous, condescending and incompetent, and seem to enjoy abusing the power of their offices.

Thus, the conclusion of [the Journal's editorial] “Abolish FISA”—which may shock some people, certainly the judiciary—seems totally appropriate: “Far from expanding FISA, Congress could best serve the country by abolishing it.” Americans will rue the day they entrusted national security to an unelected, unchecked judiciary that is ill-equipped to prevent another 9/11.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/WSJ-AbolishFISA-06-2-15.pdf

If anything, my views on the subject are even stronger today than four years ago!

27 08 2010
Smilin' Jack

Obama has shown us his dark side again, and all Americans better recognize that fact. He is protecting his butt at our expense, when someone said that in one of the two books he had written the phrase ” If the political winds shift against me, I would have to side with the muslims”, or words to that effect. A person such as Obama should have been thrown out of office when he didn’t show anyone his “passport”, and paid millions to keep it secret. I would like to know if he still talks “secretly” a.k.a. “privately” to someone for ten minutes every morning, without security listening to his calls. By the way, he asked for the ten minutes when he first entered the white house, and security said no.

30 08 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Vacations With Elites And His “Marie Antoinette” On Martha’s Vineyard, While America Sinks Farther Into The “Great Depression II” And His War In Afghanistan Continues Without “Victory” In Sight

Obama on Martha's Vineyard

See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-great-depression-ii/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-659

Let’s face it, Obama is pure scum, and probably the worst president in American history. He should be thrown out of office now, rather than waiting for the elections of 2012.

In the process of criticizing the economic policies of former President George W. Bush and the current “partisan minority” in Congress, Obama has asked Republicans to drop their economic “blockade” of additional wasteful spending by his administration and the Democrats. How truly outrageous! He even has the gall to say: “”It took nearly a decade to dig the hole that we’re in.”

If he had even a modicum of knowledge about economics, he would know that Alan Greenspan is the “father” of the mess we are in; and that, if anything, Obama has made things worse. Hopefully the GOP blocks anything and everything that he tries to put through. The signs of social and economic waste are abundant already.

See, e.g., http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/08/30/obama_it_took_nearly_a_decade_to_dig_the_hole_that_were_in.html and http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-30-1Asafetynet30_ST_N.htm?csp=hf

Lastly, Obama has adroitly “protected” himself politically by having Biden as vice president, who is an utter buffoon, a pathological liar, and who is probably mentally “unhinged.”

31 08 2010
Smilin' Jack

This just might be a “bad dream,” and we will wake up one day and laugh when we discover George W. Bush is still president, causing us to spring up out of bed gleefully yelling to the top of our lungs “THANK GOD YOU ARE STILL PRESIDENT, ‘DUBYA!'”

Face it…even a dead rabbit would be a better president than Obama… At least it wouldn’t wreck our country financially, or blame all the presidents past for the problems we have now…. No, the rabbit would be silent, and not be to blame, but on the other hand we would not be in this situation either.

Hang on to your underpants, the —- is going to hit the fan pretty soon.

4 09 2010
naegeleblog

Is Obama A Traitor . . . Who Should Be Removed From—Or Forced To Resign From—The Presidency?

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer has an important article entitled, “Our distracted commander in chief,” in which he states:

Many have charged that President Obama’s decision to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan 10 months from now is hampering our war effort. But now it’s official. In a stunning statement last week, Marine Corps Commandant James Conway admitted that the July 2011 date is “probably giving our enemy sustenance.”

A remarkably bold charge for an active military officer. It stops just short of suggesting aiding and abetting the enemy. Yet the observation is obvious. . . .

. . .

“Our Afghan policy was focused as much as anything on domestic politics,” an Obama adviser told the New York Times’ Peter Baker. “He would not risk losing the moderate to centrist Democrats in the middle of health insurance reform and he viewed that legislation as the make-or-break legislation for his administration.”

If this is true, then Obama’s military leadership can only be called scandalous.

. . .

Obama sees his wartime duties as a threat to his domestic agenda. These wars are a distraction, unwanted interference with his true vocation—transforming America.

. . .

[He] wants out. Most emphatically from Iraq, where Obama has long made clear that his objective is simply ending combat operations by an arbitrary deadline—despite the fact that a new government has not been formed and all our hard-won success hangs in the balance—in order to address the more paramount concern: keeping a campaign promise. Time to “turn the page” and turn America elsewhere.

. . .

[W]hat follows the now-abolished Global War on Terror[?] Where does America stand on the spreading threats to stability, decency and U.S. interests from the Horn of Africa to the Hindu Kush?

On this, not a word. Instead, Obama made a strange and clumsy segue into a pep talk on the economy. Rebuilding it, he declared, “must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.” This in a speech ostensibly about the two wars he is directing. He could not have made more clear where his priorities lie, and how much he sees foreign policy—war policy—as subordinate to his domestic ambitions.

Unfortunately, what for Obama is a distraction is life or death for U.S. troops now on patrol in Kandahar province. Some presidents may not like being wartime leaders. But they don’t get to decide. History does. Obama needs to accept the role. It’s not just the U.S. military, as Baker reports, that is “worried he is not fully invested in the cause.” Our allies, too, are experiencing doubt. And our enemies are drawing sustenance.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090203991.html?sub=AR; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-speech—is-barack-obama-smoking-pot-again

Obama must be removed from the presidency—and this November’s elections are the beginning of that process.

. . .

Obama’s approval rating is at 42 percent—56 percent disapprove!

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history; see also http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090305100.html (Obama’s “Oval Office rug gets history wrong”)

5 09 2010
naegeleblog

Obama’s Approval Ratings Are Plummeting . . .

. . . as more and more Americans come to realize just how truly bad he is:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-seven percent (47%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -23 (see trends).

That’s the highest level of Strong Disapproval and the lowest Approval Index daily rating yet recorded for this president. However, while the daily ratings are sometime volatile, a Month-by-Month review of the president’s numbers continues to show a high degree of stability. On a full-month basis, the Presidential Approval Index has stayed between -14 and -17 for eight of the past nine months.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll and http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month

He is not one of us . . . which was crystal clear before the 2008 elections if we had read his “Dreams from My Father”!

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

7 09 2010
naegeleblog

Gangster Government!

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial entitled, “The Obama Economy,” which is subtitled appropriately enough, “How trillions in fiscal and monetary stimulus produced a 1.6% recovery.”

More importantly, it states:

Democrats embarked on the most sweeping expansion of government since the 1960s, imposing national health care, rewriting financial laws from top to bottom, attempting to re-regulate the telecom industry, and imposing vast new costs on energy, among many other proposals. Not to stop there, in January it plans to impose a huge new tax increase on “the wealthy,” which in practice means on the most profitable small businesses.

Central to Mr. Obama’s political strategy for passing these priorities has been trashing business and bankers as greedy profiteers. His Administration has denounced or held up as political or legal targets the Chrysler bond holders, Wall Street bonuses, Goldman Sachs, health-insurer profits, carbon energy investors, and anyone else who has dared to oppose any of its plans to “transform” U.S. society.

. . .

As for blaming the Republicans, with only 40 and then 41 Senators they couldn’t stop so much as a swinging door. The GOP couldn’t even block the recent $10 billion teachers union bailout. The only major Obama priorities that haven’t passed—cap and tax and union card check—were blocked by a handful of Democrats who finally said “no mas.” No Administration since LBJ’s in 1965 has passed so much of its agenda in one Congress—which is precisely the problem.

. . .

Democrats purposely used the recession as a political opening to redistribute income, reverse the free-market reforms of the Reagan era, and put government at the commanding heights of economic decision-making.

Mr. Obama and the Democratic Congress have succeeded in doing all of this despite the growing opposition of the American people, who are now enduring the results. The only path back to robust growth and prosperity is to stop this agenda dead in its tracks, and then by stages to reverse it. These are the economic stakes in November.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071281687927918.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop; see also http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2010/09/13/gangster_government_stifles_criticism_of_obamacare/page/full/ (“Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare”)

Amen! And the symmetry with respect to Lyndon Johnson, and the fact that he could not run for reelection in 1968, is worth noting. Obama is sinking farther into the “Great Depression II” and the Afghan “tar,” both of which are likely to doom his presidency and foreclose his reelection chances in 2012

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-great-depression-ii/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/

9 09 2010
naegeleblog

Bad Omens For November And Beyond: Poll Numbers For Obama And Congress Plummet

For September 9, 2010, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that 47 percent of the nation’s voters Strongly Disapprove of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president, while just 23 percent Strongly Approve, giving Obama a negative Presidential Approval Index rating of -24.

Overall, 41 percent of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance, while 58 percent disapprove. The Approval Index rating is the lowest yet recorded for this president. Overall Job Approval matches the lowest recorded number, and the number who Strongly Disapprove matches the highest yet recorded.

Obama continues to earn Approval from 74 percent of Democrats; however, 88 percent of Republicans disapprove, and 63 of those not affilated with either major political party (e.g., Independents such as yours truly) disapprove.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Also, going into the final weeks of the election season, 62 percent of Likely U.S. Voters believe that no matter how bad things are, Congress can always make them worse. A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds that just 19 percent disagree, while 19 percent are not sure. This level of skepticism is shared by a majority of just about every partisan and demographic group, including 53 percent of Democrats whose party currently controls both houses of Congress.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2010/62_say_no_matter_how_bad_things_are_congress_can_make_them_worse

9 09 2010
naegeleblog

Hillary Fires First Shots At Barry

Political pundit and former Bill Clinton advisor, Dick Morris, has a new article in which he essentially says that Hillary (and Bill) Clinton’s campaign for the presidency against Barack Obama has begun. It is worth reading.

I have believed for a long time now that she—or more precisely, “they”—will run against Obama. His poll numbers are falling like a rock, just as Lyndon Johnson’s popularity plummeted before the 1968 elections; and things are likely to get even worse for Obama.

How sweet it will be, to see the Clintons and Obama going at each other again—with the Republicans and Independents supporting neither of them. :-)

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/hillarys-first-shot/#more-1345

9 09 2010
smilinjacksez

You have been correct in 99.9% of the information you give out on your blog, so we really have no reason to doubt what you say.

Yes, we think you are correct again that Hillary will run, but we here at Smilin Jack Sez are waiting to hear from you about where “Bill” is going to wind up.

9 09 2010
naegeleblog

Thank you for your nice comments, Jack.

My guess is that he will be like Tiger Woods, except hoping not to be caught . . . again. :-)

12 09 2010
naegeleblog

Obama’s Electoral Coalition Is Crumbling

This is the latest conclusion, and the headline from an in-depth Los Angeles Times article.

See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-coalition-20100912,0,599112,full.story

22 09 2010
naegeleblog

Obama is Jimmy Carter-lite

The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund has an article comparing Barack Obama with Jimmy Carter, which is a comparison that more and more Democrats are making, as the end of the Obama presidency looms and becomes increasingly evident.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575505822147816104.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

Obama might be the worse president in American history. As indicated in the article above, it has been said:

Jimmy Carter may be heading to #2 on the [list of] all-time worst presidents in American history, thanks to “O.”

This is an understatement.

Probably the greatest difference is that Carter had and still has spiritual underpinnings. Obama has none . . . and his over-arching narcissism shines through, which is repugnant.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

The hatred of Obama is growing, like it did with respect to Lyndon Johnson before the 1968 elections. The Vietnam War was Johnson’s downfall; whereas, the economy and Obama’s Afghan War may be his downfall, preventing him from seeking reelection.

As the 1968 elections approached, there were bumper stickers on cars in the District of Columbia that asked: “Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that we really need him?”—referring to the assassination of Johnson’s predecessor in office, John F. Kennedy, by Oswald.

22 09 2010
naegeleblog

Obama: “I’m Doing Defeat, And Cut And Run In Afghanistan. I’m Giving America Another Vietnam.”

The quote above is not actual, but a synthesis of Barack Obama’s policies with respect to his Afghan War. Like Lyndon Johnson before him, America’s supreme narcissist Obama thinks that he knows how to run a war. Leave aside the fact that he has never run anything in his life, much less successfully, and that he even failed as a community organizer in Chicago, he has the gall to believe that he can run a war.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

The Washington Post has a fine article about Bob Woodward’s new book, “Obama’s Wars,” which sums up the situation in Afghanistan:

Woodward quotes [Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command during the 2009 strategy review and now the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan] as saying, “You have to recognize also that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. It’s a little bit like Iraq, actually. . . . Yes, there has been enormous progress in Iraq. But there are still horrific attacks in Iraq, and you have to stay vigilant. You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.”

Yet, the Post article cites Obama:

“I’m not doing 10 years,” he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.”

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706_pf.html

Having ignored the advice of America’s military leaders, Obama has crafted a strategy that insures defeat in Afghanistan . . . and the probable loss of Pakistan too, with its nuclear arsenal. There is little doubt that Obama will go down in history as America’s worst president and its greatest failure as a leader.

What is crystal clear from the Post article is that Obama is a fool and a feckless naïf, who must be driven from the presidency using every constitutional means possible. Among other things, the Post article reports:

During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “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.”

This oaf is apparently unaware that the greatest threat to the United States and the American people—with respect to whom he swore an oath to defend and protect—comes in the form of an EMP Attack that might be launched from a barge off our Atlantic or Pacific coasts, or in the Gulf of Mexico or the Sea of Cortez.

It has been estimated that only 30 million Americans would survive such an attack; and it is criminal for Obama to say (or think) that “[w]e can absorb a terrorist attack.” Aside from his conclusion being preposterous and utter nonsense militarily, it is dangerous, irresponsible and traitorous!

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ and http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/09/on_terrorism_barack_obama_is_n.html and http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-we-can-absorb-another-9-11/

22 09 2010
naegeleblog

Do-nothing Democrats

This is the title of a Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, which is worth reading.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092105113_pf.html

23 09 2010
naegeleblog

Independents Reject Obama And Dems, And Swing To The GOP

In an ominous sign for Barack Obama and his Democrat Party members, Independents—who are the swing group in U.S. politics, and constitute approximately 35 percent of American voters—are abandoning Obama and his Dems, and switching to Republican candidates. According to an article at POLITICO.com:

[I]ndependent voters now favor Republicans by nearly the same margins that they went for Obama in 2008 and his party in the 2006 mid-term, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released Wednesday.

“For the third national election in a row, independent voters may be poised to vote out the party in power,” Pew concludes.

. . .

In 2006, 67 percent of independents were not satisfied with national conditions; today, 76 percent aren’t happy.

. . .

“Trust in government is at one of the lowest points in 60 years of polling,” said [Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center]. “It’s a backlash against what is seen as government policies and programs that are too liberal or too much in the vein of government expansion.”

. . .

Among [independents who are “likely voters”], 49 percent said they will support a GOP candidate compared to just 36 percent who are likely to vote Democratic—and that “is a pivotal factor behind the Republican Party’s overall seven-point lead among all likely voters at this point in the campaign,” the [P]ew report notes.

On the issues, Republicans have overtaken Democratic advantages on managing foreign policy, national security and the economy.

However, the Democrats maintained an edge on social issues. For instance, more than twice as many independent voters than Republican voters favor allowing same-sex marriages.

Social conservative groups have tried to elevate their issues, but Kohut said Republican leaders would be wise to resist them.

“Those were issues that were very successful in keeping the base together in the Bush years,” he said. “But you don’t need issues like that to keep the base together. The base is unified in its negative response to Obama and the economy.”

See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42625.html

In the not-too-distant future, the negatives with respect to Obama’s no-win Afghan War will weigh in too, along with his laissez-faire, blasé attitude about future terrorist attacks on Americans and the United States.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/are-afghanistan-iraq-and-pakistan-hopeless-and-is-the-spread-of-radical-islam-inevitable-and-is-barack-obama-finished-as-americas-president/#comment-756

28 09 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Is Destructive To America!

Barack Obama had the gall to participate in a Rolling Stone interview in which he stated that Fox News is “destructive” to America. Yes, this is the same Rolling Stone that published an interview with America’s top Afghan commander, General Stanley A. McChrystal, which resulted in his departure from Afghanistan and the U.S. Army.

And this is the same Barack Obama who was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never set foot on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles and Columbia University in New York City, where he admits having been a “Junkie” or close to it:

Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.

This is the same Barack Obama who has been systematically destroying America—and who should be ousted from the presidency as soon as humanly possible, before he can do any more damage.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ and http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=0%3E, and http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/obama-fox-news-is-destructive-to-america/?hpt=T2

While there are plenty of raving narcissists in Washington and elsewhere in the country, Obama may take the honors in that regard. He states in the Rolling Stone interview:

I came in and had to prevent a Great Depression, restore the financial system so that it functions, and manage two wars.

For openers, he did not prevent an economic depression, but has contributed to it. He did not “restore the financial system.” That is absurd. And his Afghan war is proving to be a failure, and quite possibly our second Vietnam. Also, he takes pride in “resetting our relations with Russia and potentially having a new START treaty by the end of the year,” which is equally absurd.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/

Throughout the interview, he keeps referring to “progressives” and “the progressive community” and “progressive supporters,” which is a ruse and nothing more than names for the far-Leftist Democrats, of which Obama is one. They are no more “progressive” than Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were; however, he is very sensitive about them because they are deserting him. The Republicans, Independents and members of the Tea Party movement are gone already. Now his supporters are leaving too.

Next, Obama addressed the fraud of so-called “global warming,” “greenhouse gases,” and “climate change”:

What I would agree with is that climate change has the potential to have devastating effects on people around the globe, and we’ve got to do something about it. In order to do something about it, we’re going to have to mobilize domestically, and we’re going to have to mobilize internationally.

This too is absurd.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor/

He added:

I think we’ve moved the country in a profoundly better direction just in the past two years.

His detractors, who constitute a majority of the American people, believe just the opposite. Put succinctly, Obama is evil personified, which is becoming clearer with each day that passes.

Lastly, he said:

It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election.

. . .

The idea that we’ve got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible.

. . .

We have to get folks off the sidelines. People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up.
Bringing about change is hard—that’s what I said during the campaign. It has been hard, and we’ve got some lumps to show for it. But if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.

Wonderful! Hopefully all of them stand (or sit) on the sidelines, and watch the Republicans, Independents, Tea Party members, and disenchanted Democrats triumph. The sooner this happens, the sooner he will be gone forever—and consigned permanently to the dustbin of history, where he belongs.

29 09 2010
naegeleblog

The Tea Party Movement Is Becoming A Major Force In American Politics

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article about the rise of the Tea Party movement in America, which is worth reading.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520252928390046.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

What is most important to realize is that the Tea Party movement involves Republicans, Independents, and disenchanted Democrats, who are generally united against Barack Obama, his far-Left Democrats, and their agenda for America—and who want Obama gone from Washington permanently, and consigned to the dustbin of history.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/

I am a proud Independent, and have been for more than 20 years, after first being a Democrat and then a Republican. The Tea Party movement is refreshing, to say the least.

Please read (or reread) Obama’s “Dreams from My Father,” if you have any doubts about who he is or what he stands for, or where he is taking the United States. The book is shocking . . . but the “nightmare” is playing out for all Americans to see—and to suffer from until he is removed from office.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

30 09 2010
naegeleblog

The End Is Near: Young People And Minorities Are All Obama Has Left

John Fund has an article on this subject, in which he states:

His worst numbers are with voters aged 50 to 64, only 34% of whom rate him positively.

. . .

[A]mong non-Hispanic whites, the bottom has dropped out.

. . .

White voters without a college degree have become the biggest headache for the Obama White House: only 31% of women who fit that description rate the president well and only 22% of men.

Those kinds of numbers explain the panic setting into Democratic ranks this fall. In this election cycle, a disproportionate number of key Senate and House races are taking place in areas with older voters and few minorities. Those also are the same areas where voters appear to be most dissatisfied with Democratic rule and most eager to send a message this November.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116004575522160145340470.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

30 09 2010
naegeleblog

ObamaCare Is One Of Many Factors Sinking Obama And The Democrats

Karl Rove has an article about the effects of ObamaCare, which is worth reading.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116004575522073624475054.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

30 09 2010
naegeleblog

Gallup Shows Obama Leading Hillary Clinton For 2012 Democrat Presidential Nomination . . .

. . . but this will change dramatically.

See http://www.gallup.com/poll/143318/Obama-Clinton-2012-Democratic-Nomination.aspx

The “Pitbull” Rahm Emanuel is leaving the White House, just one of many rats to leave the sinking ship. Barack Obama is finished. The handwriting is on the wall.

November’s elections will be a “bloodbath” for his Democrats; and things will only get worse economically, much worse, during the balance of this decade. After November, Obama will be too weak to do much of anything . . . except to make more mistakes.

The twin pincers of the economy and the Afghan war—which an expert, whom I respect, has described as being “futile” and “hopeless”—are likely to seal Obama’s fate before the 2012 elections and prevent him from getting the Democrat nomination, similar to what happened to Lyndon Johnson as the 1968 elections approached.

We are witnessing the end of Obama . . . and none too soon.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/

1 10 2010
naegeleblog

Barack Obama Is A Coward And A Traitor

He never served in the U.S. military, and at best he was a lousy community organizer. He grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never set foot on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles and Columbia University in New York City, where he was a druggie by his own admissions.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.”)

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer has another of his fine op-ed pieces entitled, “Why is Obama sending troops to Afghanistan?” In it, he states:

What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn’t have his heart in it. One who doesn’t really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture. One who thinks he has to be seen as trying but is preparing the ground—meaning, the political cover—for failure.

. . .

Moreover, he must find an exit because “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.” This admission is the most crushing of all.

. . .

[A]fter acceding to power and being given charge of that very war, Obama confides that he must retreat, lest that very same party abandon him. What happened in the interim? Did it suddenly develop a faint heart? Or was the party disingenuous about the Afghan war all along, using it as a convenient club with which to attack George W. Bush over Iraq, while protecting Democrats from the charge of being reflexively antiwar?

. . .

Every war is arduous and requires continual presidential explication, inspiration and encouragement. This has been true from Lincoln through FDR through Bush. Since announcing his Afghan surge, Obama’s only major speech that featured Afghanistan was an Oval Office address about America leaving Iraq—the Afghan part being sandwiched between that and a long-winded plea for his economic policies.

“He was looking for choices that would limit U.S. involvement and provide a way out,” writes [the Washington Post's Bob] Woodward. One can only conclude that Obama now thinks Afghanistan is a mistake. Maybe he thought so from the very beginning. More charitably and more likely, he is simply a foreign policy novice who didn’t understand what this war was about until being given the authority and duty to conduct it—and then decided it was all a mistake.

. . .

“He is out of Afghanistan psychologically,” says Woodward of Obama. Well, he may be out, but the soldiers he ordered to Afghanistan are in.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093004683.html (emphasis in original); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-342 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-623 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-723 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-758

Obama must be removed from office, constitutionally, as rapidly as possible.

5 10 2010
naegeleblog

November’s Elections May Be A Blowout Of Truly Historic Proportions

Commenting on recent Gallup polling data, political analyst Michael Barone notes:

The Gallup high turnout and low turnout numbers suggest it looks like 1894, when Republicans gained more than 100 seats in a House of approximately 350 seats.

Having said that, caution is in order. Gallup’s numbers tend to be volatile.

See http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallups-astonishing-numbers-and-the-lake-superior-congressional-districts-104321583.html

6 10 2010
naegeleblog

An Omen, And A Sign That The End Is Near

The presidential seal came crashing down from his lectern in the middle of a speech, which may be a sign of things to come, certainly as the November elections approach. He might be a “lame duck” president afterward.

The End Of Barack Obama's presidency?

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318095/Presidential-seal-falls-lectern-Obama-speech-Washington.html

The end of your presidency may be near, Barack!

8 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Tea Party Participation Up As Election Nears

According to the Rasmussen polling organization:

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Likely U.S. Voters now say they are Tea Party members or have close friends or family members who are part of the movement.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 17% describe themselves as members of the Tea Party, up four points from late August. Twelve percent (12%) more say they are not members themselves but have friends or family who are involved in the small government, anti-tax movement.

Just after Democrats in Congress passed the national health care bill in late March, 24% of voters said they were Tea Party members, with 10% more saying they had close friends or family members who were participants.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2010/tea_party_participation_up_as_election_nears

This does not bode well for Obama and the Democrats in next month’s elections. :-)

8 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Bush Pulls Even With Obama In Polling . . .

See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/cnntime-poll-was-bush-better-president-than-obama/

. . . while Biden says: “If we lose, we’re going to play Hell.”

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/08/biden_if_we_lose_were_going_to_play_hell.html

More reasons to get rid of Obama, Biden and the Democrats!

12 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

A Landslide Without Precedent Appears To Be In The Making

According to Dick Morris:

The mainstream media is peddling the line that the Democrats are staging a comeback, slicing Republican leads. It is absolute nonsense.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/republican-trend-grows/#more-2123

12 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Almost Half Of Obama’s Supporters Now Have Doubts

Bloomberg is reporting that hope has turned to doubt and disenchantment for almost half of Barack Obama’s supporters.

See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-12/obama-losing-supporters-in-poll-as-joblessness-prompts-voters-discontent.html

Even the long-time supporter of Democrats and their causes, billionaire investor George Soros, is predicting a Republican “avalanche” in next month’s elections.

See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/soros-i-cant-stop-a-republican-avalanche/?hp

What may be most troubling is that a majority of women view Obama and his administration as a “failure,” according to a new poll:

Fifty-six percent of women consider the health care reform law a failure, while 29 percent view it as a success, according to the poll.

The economic stimulus package is viewed only slightly more favorably: 53 percent say it was a failure, while 34 percent say it was a success.

Among independent women—a group that Democrats and Republicans are battling over—a majority viewed the health care overhaul, the stimulus package, the auto industry bailout and the Troubled Asset Relief Program as failures, the poll found.

See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43436.html

How sweet it is! The chickens are coming home to roost for Barack Obama and his Democrats.

13 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama’s Miracle: He’s Making Bush Look Good

This is the title of a Wall Street Journal article by John Fund, which states:

President Obama has been enamored of the theme that the country can’t afford to return to what he terms the discredited policies of the Bush years. “That’s the mantra that he wants to drill into voters’ heads between now and November,” ABC News reported last summer.

The only problem, according to [Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg], is that it doesn’t work. “Though voters agree the economy was an ‘inherited’ problem, they do not like to hear politicians blaming Bush or looking backwards,” he concluded in his study. In an interview with Jane Hamsher of the blog Firedog Lake, Mr. Greenberg went on to say: “I’m really puzzled by Democratic leaders stuck in a message that demonstrably doesn’t work.” He puts it down to the president listening to economic advisers who want him to set a rhetorical tone that “will help confidence to come back.”

But so far the only thing that seems to be coming back is nostalgia for George W. Bush. A new CNN poll finds voters still believe Mr. Obama is a better president than Mr. Bush was, but by only 47% to 45%. That’s down from a whopping 23-point margin last year. “Democrats would be wise to think twice before bringing up the name of President Bush on the campaign trail this fall,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440004575548130895975438.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

17 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama’s Winning Coalition From 2008 Has Crumbled

According to an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll released two weeks before Obama’s first midterm elections:

[O]ne-quarter of those who voted for the Democrat are defecting to the GOP or considering voting against the party in power this fall. Just half of them say they definitely will show up Nov. 2 . . . .

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101017/ap_on_el_ge/us_ap_poll_obama_voters

20 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Just Say “NO” To Obama And His Democrats!

The Rasmussen polling organization is reporting:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most Likely Voters think their representative in Congress does not deserve reelection if he or she voted for the national health care law, the auto bailouts or the $787-billion economic stimulus plan.

Those votes also appear to be driving factors in the GOP’s consistent lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2010/most_voters_oppose_the_reelection_of_anyone_who_voted_for_the_health_care_law_auto_bailouts_stimulus_plan

22 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

A Heretofore-Undiscovered Psychological Derangement: Anxiety-Induced Obama Underappreciation Syndrome

In a brilliant column, the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer has laid bare Barack Obama’s strategy for winning the upcoming election: To blame the American people, and call them disparaging names.

Among other things, Krauthammer writes:

I have a better explanation. Better because it adheres to the ultimate scientific principle, Occam’s Razor, by which the preferred explanation for any phenomenon is the one with the most economy and simplicity. And there is nothing simpler than the Gallup findings on the ideological inclinations of the American people. Conservative: 42 percent. Moderate: 35 percent. Liberal: 20 percent. No fanciful new syndromes or other elaborate fictions are required to understand that if you try to impose a liberal agenda on such a demonstrably center-right country—a country that is 80 percent non-liberal—you get a massive backlash.

Moreover, apart from ideology is empirical reality. Even as we speak, the social-democratic model Obama is openly and boldly trying to move America toward is unraveling in Europe. It’s not just the real prospect of financial collapse in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, with even the relatively more stable major countries in severe distress. It is the visible moral collapse of a system that, after two generations of increasing cradle-to-grave infantilization, turns millions of citizens into the streets of France in furious and often violent protest over what? Over raising the retirement age from 60 to 62!

Having seen this display of what can only be called decadence, Obama’s perfectly wired electorate says no, not us, not here. The peasants have seen the future—Greece and France—and concluded that it does not work. Hence their opposition to Obama’s proudly transformational New Foundation agenda. Their logic is impeccable: Only the most blinkered intellectual could be attempting to introduce social democracy to America precisely when the world’s foremost exemplar of that model—Europe—is in chaotic meltdown.

And it isn’t as if this political message is new. It had already been sent in the last year with clarion clarity in the elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts where independents—the swing voters without ideological attachment one way or the other—split 2-to-1, 2-to-1 and 3-to-1, respectively, against the Democrats.

The story of the last two years is as simple as it is dramatic. It is the epic story of an administration with a highly ideological agenda encountering a rising resistance from the American people over the major question in dispute: the size and reach and power of government and, even more fundamentally, the nature of the American social contract.

An adjudication of the question will be rendered on Nov. 2. For the day, the American peasantry will be presiding.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102104856.html

I am proudly an Independent—a swing voter without ideological attachment one way or the other.

23 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama And His Democrats To Face “A Huge Hurricane”—And They Deserve Every Bit Of It, And More!

According to the Wall Street Journal:

“We knew there was a hurricane that was going to hit Washington,” said Democrat Peter Hart, co-director of The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. “All we’re doing is getting closer and closer and at this stage of the game it’s going to be a huge hurricane.”

. . .

Given how close the fight for control of the Senate will be, a delay in calling one or more of the three tight Western races could leave the question of which party is in charge there hanging unanswered. Republicans would have to make a net gain of 10 seats in the Senate to win control, a number that they could reach only by winning most of the closest races where Democratic incumbents are fighting for re-election. In all three of the big Western states Mr. McInturff cited, Democratic incumbents—Patty Murray in Washington, Barbara Boxer in California and Harry Reid in Nevada—are in tough fights.

. . .

[Hart warned that] a “hurricane” is heading toward Democrats on Election Day, and that there is little they can do to avert it at this stage of the campaign.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303738504575567970152133114.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLTopStories

25 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Is More Than Pathetic!

Here is his latest quote about Republicans:

We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back [of the bus].

Such highly-charged racial comments are consistent with his life.

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101025/ap_on_el_pr/us_obama and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

28 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Signs Of The Democrats’ Apocalypse

The Wall Street Journal has a interesting analysis of the likely upcoming election results by former George W. Bush staffer Karl Rove, which is worth reading.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578243140680032.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

28 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Most Americans Want Obama Fired, And Believe George W. Bush Was A Better President

New poll results published by U.S. News & World Report indicate that 56 percent of likely American voters want Barack Obama fired, and just 42 percent approve of his job performance. The publication adds:

“. . . 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president.” Worse, [pollster Doug] Schoen adds, “43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.”

See http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/10/27/poll-most-want-obama-fired-in-2012

A Wall Street Journal article entitled, “A Referendum on the Redeemer,” states:

There is an “otherness” about Mr. Obama, the sense that he is somehow not truly American.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578363243019000.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

Like Jimmy Carter before him, Obama has vilified America and trashed what is good about her, instead of extolling her virtues and building on her greatness as the revered Ronald Reagan did. Reagan put the ghosts and shame of the Vietnam War to rest. Obama wants to drive this wonderful country back to similar days, and seems ashamed of America’s greatness.

This is not surprising at all. Once again, Obama never set foot on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles and Columbia University in New York City. There, by his own admissions in his book, “Dreams from My Father,” he states:

Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist

Obama must be driven from office before he does more damage to this great country!

29 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Bill Clinton Is Essentially “Going Rogue” Against Barack Obama

One has to love “Bill Clinton’s ‘retribution tour’ against Barack Obama”—as it is being called—when “his principal motivation for going on the campaign trail [is] to thank those who had supported his wife against Obama.”

The UK Daily Telegraph’s U.S. Editor Toby Harnden adds:

[I]t is noteworthy that Bill is apparently about to campaign for Frank Caprio, the Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate who this week told Obama he could “shove it” after the President declined to endorse him.

. . .

My hunch is that the Clintons smell Obama’s blood in the water right now and, political predators that they are, they are positioning themselves to take advantage (and, frankly, who could blame them for doing so?). We know from 2008 what they really think of Obama. Despite Hillary’s loyal service as Secretary of State, her scathing critique of Obama during their bruising primary still stands—and now looks prescient.

Coincidentally (not), Hillary will be out of the country next Tuesday—as far away from the impending disaster as possible.

Some are speculating that Hillary might resign from State and mount a primary challenge to Obama in 2012.

. . .

Of course, it’s not impossible that Obama, badly damaged by the mid-terms and sick of the distinct lack of the adoration he’s always been used to, will do an LBJ and decide not to run in 2012. I’ve long wondered whether his heart is in getting re-elected. In mid-September, a “big-time Democrat” told Politico’s Roger Simon that 2010 was already lost:

“It is gone. He must now concentrate on saving 2012. But the biggest fear of some of those close to him is that he might not really want to go on in 2012, that he might not really care.”

In the event that Obama decides not to run for re-election, Hillary becomes the immediate Democratic front runner.

See http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100061169/bill-clintons-retribution-tour-against-barack-obama/ (emphasis added)

As indicated in the postings above, I have believed for a long time now this is the likely scenario.

The Wall Street Journal has an article entitled “Proxy War in Rhode Island?” and subtitled, “The Clinton-Obama rivalry is never far from the surface,” which is worth reading too.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303362404575580430987381798.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

29 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

We Are In Uncharted Waters

These are the words of former presidential aspirant, Pat Buchanan, in an excellent, well-reasoned article entitled, “Obstructionism reaps its reward.”

See http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=221125

I am not a “fan” of Buchanan, but I respect his views; and this article is one of his best. Indeed, his words echo what I wrote back in April of 2009, in an op-ed “Commentary” published by the McClatchy Newspapers and McClatchy-Tribune News Service entitled, “Euphoria or the Obama Depression?”:

America and other nations are in uncharted waters; and their politicians may face backlashes from disillusioned and angry constituents that are unprecedented in modern times.

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html; see also http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/

The chickens are coming home to roost, bigtime!

30 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Independents Break Sharply For The GOP

An excellent Wall Street Journal article entitled, “Swing Voters Are Flocking to GOP,” states:

The Democrats’ final push to woo undecided voters appears to have fizzled, potentially putting dozens of competitive House races beyond reach and undermining the party’s chances in at least four toss-up Senate seats, according to party strategists and officials.

Independents, a crucial swing bloc, seem to be breaking sharply for Republicans in the final days of the campaign.

One nonpartisan prognosticator, Stuart Rothenberg, said Friday he thought the Republicans could pick up as many as 70 House seats—something no party has achieved since 1948. The Republicans need 39 seats to take the majority. Fading Democratic support among independents is also keeping alive the GOP’s longer-shot hopes of taking the Senate.

. . .

[Democrat] Party strategists say their biggest problem now is swing voters’ frustration with the president, prompting some to start fretting about the impact of this disenchantment on the 2012 elections.

. . .

“This race is all about President Obama.”

Nationally, independent voters, who backed Democrats in 2006 and 2008, have swung to the GOP. In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 52% said they would vote Republican next week. The survey found Mr. Obama, who won 52% of independents nationally in 2008, has a job-approval rating of just 40% among that group.

With enthusiasm ebbing on the left, Democratic candidates needed this year to win over even more independent voters than Mr. Obama did in 2008, strategists said. Candidates who have been banking on making up this ground in the closing days have instead seen independent voters flocking to the GOP.

. . .

“Independents who helped Obama win in ’08, are now giving GOP candidates significant edges, from the U.S. Senate to state legislative races across the country,” said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse.

Democratic strategists said independents were taking out their frustrations against Democrats up and down the ballot, even in state legislative and [city council] races.

Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant who served as a senior adviser to the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry, said the trend was striking this year. “They are behaving like Republicans,” Mr. Devine said of independent voters.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304879604575582472322281134.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Independents, Republicans and “disenchanted” Democrats—many of whom are members or supporters of the Tea Party movement—will prove to be a potent force in American politics!

30 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Bravo: The Bushes Are Back!

George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush-2010 World Series

Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were together when the latter threw out a ceremonial first pitch before Game 4 of the World Series. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

George W. Bush was managing general partner of the Rangers from 1989-94 and maintained partial ownership of the club until 1998, two years before he was elected the 43rd president.

Also, nine years ago this weekend, George W. Bush took to the pitcher’s mound at Yankee Stadium just north of Ground Zero, and threw out the ceremonial first pitch of the 2001 World Series that brought America together after 9-11, as the country rose as one with the 57,000 fans in the stadium thundering for the world to hear: “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/31/former_president_bush_throws_out_first_pitch_at_game_4_of_world_series.html and http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bbo-world-series-first-pitches,0,3673890.story; see also http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/4415470/raw-bush-on-the-factor-part-1/?playlist_id=86923 (Bill O’Reilly’s interview with George W. Bush) and http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=channels/400391/1074221 (Sean Hannity’s interview with George W. Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas) and http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Tour-the-Bushs-Crawford-Texas-Ranch/1 (slides of the ranch, from Oprah.com)

30 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama’s World Turned Upside Down As Democrats Face Electoral Disaster

The UK Daily Telegraph’s U.S. Editor Toby Harnden has penned a brutal article about the realities facing Barack Obama and the Democrats. In it, he argues that by abandoning his own rhetoric of bipartisanship, Obama divided America and set the course for a heavy Democratic defeat in Tuesday’s midterm elections. Harnden adds:

Democrats are denying links to Obama, running away from their votes for health care reform and conveniently leaving their party affiliation off their election literature.

Far from being an asset to his party, Obama is widely seen as a liability.

In the closing days of the campaign for Tuesday’s midterm elections, he is not wanted by the Democratic candidates in states like Kentucky, West Virginia or even Colorado, where there are knife-edge Senate battles.

While his predecessor Bill Clinton has held more than 100 events across the country, Obama is limiting himself to the friendly turf of Democratic “blue states”.

On Saturday night, he will campaign in Chicago. That he is being forced to defend his home city in deep-blue Illinois, where his old Senate seat is in danger of falling to Republicans, speaks volumes about his predicament.

. . .

Swept into power on a wave of adulation and talk of an historic new era, Obama never felt he needed to work with Republicans. It took him 18 months before he invited Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, to the White House.

Rather than Obama picking up the phone, the meeting was brokered by Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, two former Senate Majority leaders who are now lobbyists. [John] Boehner, like Obama, is an avid golfer but the President has never seen fit to ask the Republican leader in the House to join him on the links.

Having moved serenely through life being complimented on being the first and the best at everything, Obama felt that his transcendent presence and intellect would be enough.

Believing he would be a great president, Obama wanted to tackle what he saw as the grand issues, not the small-bore concerns of Americans struggling to make ends meet. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, he calculated, so deal-making was not necessary.

The problem was that his world view was that of a conventional liberal Democrat but he was president of a nation that was centre-right. His victory came from those who wanted him to change Washington, not America.

These days, it is not difficult to find Obama voters who are disillusioned.

“I voted for him and I believed in him but I’m beginning to feel that he’s overreached,” said Christopher Quail, an English-born former Dominican priest who has lived in New Orleans for 35 years. “Something’s gone wrong. He put his favourite projects ahead of the necessities. He tackled health care instead of the economy.”

[T]he small-government, anti-tax Tea Party is the resurgent Right.

In St George, Utah, Ray Carpenter, a retired electronics engineer and Tea Party supporter, said that Obama’s only great achievement was to reawaken America and to force a silent majority of conservatives to become activists.

“Obama has forced people to think faster than they would have done had he not engaged in such an active campaign to destroy the country. He’s had a shock effect. When he hit us so hard, he jolted people awake.”

Obama’s high-minded appeals for national unity are no more. His electoral strategy is one of desperate damage limitation. Most pollsters expect Democrats to lose more than 50 seats and control of the House of Representatives.

They will probably keep control of the Senate but at least six seats look lost. Obama’s response has been to “slice and dice” the electorate in the way he condemned. He endured the indignity of being called “dude” on Jon Stewart’s Comedy Central show as the price for enticing young voters.

He’s appeared on the Reverend Al Sharpton’s internet radio show to woo black voters. On Univision radio, he told Latino voters of the need to “punish our enemies”. He routinely attacks Fox News and Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s former adviser, as a way of energising liberals.

That is the way Obama is now dealing with the reality of world as it is, rather than as he expected it to be.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8098632/US-midterm-elections-Barack-Obamas-world-turned-upside-down-as-Democrats-face-electoral-disaster.html

31 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

A New Poll Shows Democrats Not Sure Obama Should Be Reelected

The silver-tongued, narcissistic demagogue, Barack Obama, lost his temper in Connecticut today after hecklers interrupted a speech he was giving at a rally:

‘Excuse me, excuse me,’ he said repeatedly, trying to speak over the hecklers. When they kept chanting, he fell silent for several seconds, looking visibly angry and raising one hand in frustration as the crowd began to boo around him.

. . .

With the November 2 mid-term elections just days away, Mr Obama’s Democratic party is facing heavy losses.

The President himself is dealing with a devastating loss in popularity.

Democratic voters are closely divided over whether he should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012, an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll finds.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325221/Obama-heckled-Connecticut.html; see also http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=2099680

Hillary and Bill Clinton are ready to run against Obama in 2012; and his political fate may be similar to that of Lyndon Johnson in 1968. :-)

1 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Republicans Will Send More To Congress Than At Any Time In The Past 80 Years

This is what pollster Scott Rasmussen has written in an important Wall Street Journal, which is worth reading. He adds:

This isn’t a wave, it’s a tidal shift—and we’ve seen it coming for a long time. Remarkably, there have been plenty of warning signs over the past two years, but Democratic leaders ignored them. At least the captain of the Titanic tried to miss the iceberg. Congressional Democrats aimed right for it.

. . .

Central to the Democrats’ electoral woes was the debate on health-care reform. From the moment in May 2009 when the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president’s plan would cost a trillion dollars, most voters opposed it. Today 53% want to repeal it. Opposition was always more intense than support, and opposition was especially high among senior citizens, who vote in high numbers in midterm elections.

Rather than acknowledging the public concern by passing a smaller and more popular plan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama insisted on passing the proposed legislation by any means possible.

As a result, Democrats face massive losses in tomorrow’s midterm election. Based upon our generic ballot polling and an analysis of individual races, we project that Nancy Pelosi’s party will likely lose 55 or more seats in the House, putting the GOP firmly in the majority. Republicans will also win at least 25 of the 37 Senate elections. While the most likely outcome is that Republicans end up with 48 or 49 Senate seats, Democrats will need to win close races in West Virginia, Washington and California to protect their majority.

There will also be a lot more Republican governors in office come January. It looks like six heartland states stretching from Pennsylvania to Iowa will trade a Democratic governor for a Republican one. A common theme in all the races is that white, working-class Democrats who tended to vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008 are prepared to vote for Republicans.

But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.

This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.

That’s never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.

More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people.

Voters today want hope and change every bit as much as in 2008. But most have come to recognize that if we have to rely on politicians for the change, there is no hope. At the same time, Americans instinctively understand that if we can unleash the collective wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, there are no limits to what we can accomplish.

In this environment, it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn’t win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.

Elected politicians also should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586063725870380.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop (emphasis added)

1 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Brother, Can You Spare A Dime: Man Begs To Obama

Brother, Can You Spare A Dime: Man Begs To Obama

A man gets on his knees next to a car carrying Barack Obama as the president pulls away from Valois restaurant in Chicago, October 31, 2010.

See http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//101031/ids_photos_ts/r1433985915.jpg/

2 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama: A Legislator Of Negligible Experience . . . About Whom Americans Have Lost Their Illusions

The Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz has another excellent article that is worth reading, in which she says:

Whatever the outcome of today’s election, this much is clear: It will be a long time before Americans ever again decide that the leadership of the nation should go to a legislator of negligible experience—with a voting record, as state and U.S. senator, consisting largely of “present,” and an election platform based on glowing promises of transcendence. A platform vowing, unforgettably, to restore us—a country lost to arrogance and crimes against humanity—to a place of respect in the world.

We would win back our allies who, so far as we knew, hadn’t been lost anywhere. Though once Mr. Obama was elected and began dissing them with returned Churchill busts and airy claims of ignorance about the existence of any special relationship between the United States and Great Britain, the British, at least, have been feeling less like pals of old.

. . .

Nothing wakened [Americans'] instincts more than the administration’s insistence on its health-care bill—its whiff of totalitarian will, its secretiveness, its display of cold assurance that the new president’s social agenda trumped everything.

But it was about far more than health-care reform, or joblessness, or the great ideological divide between the president and the rest of the country. It was about an accumulation of facts quietly taken in that told Americans that the man they had sent to the White House had neither the character or the capacity to lead the country.

Their president was the toast of Europe, masterful before the adoring crowds—but one who had remarkably soon proved unable to inspire, in citizens at home, any belief that he was a leader they could trust. Or one who trusted them or their instincts. His Democratic voters were unhappy? They, and their limited capacities, were to blame.

These are conspicuous breaks in the armor of civility and charm that candidate Obama once showed—and those breaks are multiplying.

At a Democratic fund-raiser a few weeks ago, the president noted, in explanation for the Democrats’ lack of enthusiasm, that facts and science and argument aren’t winning the day because “we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.” The suggestion was clear: The Democrats’ growing resistance to his policies was a product of the public’s lack of intellectual capacity and their fears.

. . .

Despite charm and intellect, Americans have never been able to see in Mr. Obama a president who spoke to them and for them. He has been their lecturer-in-chief, a planner of programs for his vision of a new and progressive society.

Plenty of suggestions, none of them feasible, are in the air now about how he can reposition himself for 2012, and move to the center. Mr. Obama is who he is: a man of deep-dyed ideological inclinations, with a persona to match. And that isn’t going away.

The Democrats may not take a complete battering in the current contest, but there is no doubt of the problems ahead. This election has everything to do with the man in the White House about whom Americans have lost their illusions. Illusions matter. Their loss is irrecoverable.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588211544818170.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop (emphasis added)

2 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Is Doomed Politically

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Fred Barnes states:

By [the] fall 2009, opposition to Mr. Obama’s health-care plan solidified what appears to be a majority coalition [of Republicans, independents and tea partiers].

. . .

By April [of 2009], independents had begun their migration from left to right. This wasn’t prompted by the economy. At the time, most Americans blamed George W. Bush for the economic mess. The cause was spending, and the soaring deficit and long-term debt it was creating.

Then came the summer, dominated by growing disapproval of what Republicans dubbed ObamaCare. That trend has never reversed. Democrats were confident that their health-care reform would be a political asset. But it helped Republicans win governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey last November, and it was pivotal in January to electing Scott Brown to the Massachusetts Senate seat held for 48 years by the late Edward Kennedy.

Health care is a special thorn in the side of independents. A week ago, a George Washington University/Politico poll found that 62% of independents look unfavorably on ObamaCare. Only 6% regard it favorably. Independents, who were an indispensable part of the Democratic juggernauts in 2006 and 2008, favor Republicans by 14 percentage points.

There’s a simple way to test whether Democratic policies, rather than the economy, are the dominant factor in the midterm election: Consider the alternative. After Mr. Brown was elected on Jan. 19, Mr. Obama could have abandoned his full-throttle blitz to pass health-care reform and other legislation, instead seeking compromise with Republicans. The bipartisan route, adored by independents, was open to him.

Mr. Obama could have yielded on health care and settled for a scaled-back bill that provided coverage for the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions. He also could have proposed meaningful spending cuts or a second stimulus that included broad-based tax incentives for private investment. And he could have chosen to extend all the Bush tax cuts for another year or two.

On each of those issues, Mr. Obama would have attracted significant Republican backing—and he and his party wouldn’t be in such dire straits. Democrats would still lose House and Senate seats, but not nearly as many.

And yet Democrats will explain their losses today by faulting the economy, not themselves. Their fortunes will improve once the recovery picks up, they say. And if that line of thinking isn’t persuasive, they assert that there’s a general anti-incumbent mood among voters this year.

Many incumbents are in trouble, but voters have a specific target: the party whose policies they so heartily dislike.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/FredBarnes-DemocratsCantBlametheEconomy.pdf

Glaringly, Barnes neglects to mention Obama’s failed Afghan War, which—when coupled with the declining economy and policies such as ObamaCare that most Americans oppose—will seal Obama’s political fate like the Vietnam War precluded Lyndon Johnson from running for reelection in 1968. Also, like Jimmy Carter before him, Obama is perceived as an elitist who is “out of touch” with the American people. Indeed, his far-Left core beliefs cement this image.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/

2 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

A Majority Of Americans Believe Obama Does Not Deserve Re-Election

In an article entitled, “Obama’s Next Worry: A Restive Left Flank”—and subtitled, “Every president who lost re-election in the last half-century has first been weakened by a primary fight”—the Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund writes:

Voter discontent this year isn’t confined to the tea party. A new AP poll reports that 51% of Americans now think President Obama doesn’t deserve re-election. More surprising, 47% of Democrats believe he should face a challenge for the party’s nomination in 2012. No doubt many Democrats who hold this view are disappointed supporters of Hillary Clinton.

In reality, Mr. Obama doesn’t have to worry too much about renomination. There are no signs that Mrs. Clinton would resign as secretary of state and challenge her boss. African-Americans, the president’s strongest group of supporters, make up 30% of any Democratic primary electorate and provide him with a firewall against any opponent.

. . .

Still, a primary challenge, even if waged by a less-significant contestant, is a serious matter. Every president who lost re-election in the last half century has first been weakened by a primary fight—Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush being cases in point. Many of the three million voters Pat Buchanan attracted in 1992 against Mr. Bush, for example, wound up voting for Ross Perot in November. This allowed Bill Clinton to win with just 43% of the popular vote.

. . .

Key donors have told the White House that the president should decide for certain whether he’s running for re-election by the end of December.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588283239100518.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

2 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

U.S. To Spend $200 Million A Day On Obama’s Visit To Mumbai

It is being reported in India:

The US would be spending a whopping $200 million . . . per day on President Barack Obama’s visit to [Mumbai].

“The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit,” a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said.

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

See http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us-to-spend-200-mn-a-day-on-obama-s-mumbai-visit-64106

If the $200 million a day amount is correct, Obama should be impeached right now. He and his wife are in the process of “milking” the American taxpayers—just as she did earlier this year on a trip to Spain, when she was referred to as America’s “Marie Antoinette” (see http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-659)—during what is left of his failed presidency, which is coming to an end. At best, he will be a “lame-duck” president after today’s American elections.

. . .

Also, it is being reported that Obama will be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay.

See http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/34-warships-sent-from-us-for-obama-visit-64459

3 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

AFTER THE DEMOCRATS’ WIPE-OUT: THE NEXT GOAL!

Barack and Michelle Obama return to Chicago or Honolulu permanently

Barack and Michelle Obama leave Washington, D.C. permanently between now and January 2013, and return to Chicago or Honolulu to work on his presidential library, and enjoy life as a one-term-elected president like Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson. :-)

. . .

Indeed, the GOP’s Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said his top priority would be to assure that Obama isn’t re-elected; and incoming House Speaker John Boehner pledged the repeal of ObamaCare.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703778304575591112048213220.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_politics and http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A25DB20101103?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true and http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/11/boehner-pledges-repeal-of-obama-health-care-law/1?loc=interstitialskip

5 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Is A Raving Narcissist

An article in Germany’s Der Spiegel about America’s “out of touch” president states:

It was a failure of historic proportions. With US President Barack Obama’s Democrats having lost control of the House, there seems little hope for progress during his two remaining years, say German commentators. Obama himself, they say, bears much of the blame.

. . .

[T]he Republicans, who rode the wave of anti-incumbent sentiment and populist anger over the economy into office, now have the power to determine the House’s legislative agenda—and to block Obama proposals. Indeed, Republican leaders in the House have already promised that their first order of business will be to repeal Obama’s health care reform—his signature achievement.

Several German opinion-makers were clear that the election was more of a referendum on the president, who comes across as “cold, arrogant, and elitist,” and less of an endorsement of the Republicans and their policies.

. . .

The ‘True Victors’

But the biggest challenge for Europeans appears to be understanding the role of the Tea Party activists—described as the “true victors” of Tuesday’s elections—and predicting what kind of influence they will have over the next two years.

. . .

The effect of the elections on US-German relations were downplayed in Berlin. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman told reporters on Wednesday that the German-American friendship doesn’t rest on the shoulders of just one person, namely Barack Obama. . . .

. . .

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

“Europeans have to understand that America is different, and that means it is also different from how they would like it to be. And secondly any autopsy of the Democrats’ massive defeat on Tuesday shows that the right did not prevail simply due to their own strength. This was a collapse of the Obama coalition—because the president has lost the support of America’s middle class.”

“In Western Europe Obama still enjoys almost messianic approval ratings of 80 percent. Nowhere else on earth regards Obama’s program as more self-evident. Reforms such as health insurance for all, an active state and more environmental and climate protection are seen as catch-up Europeanization, a simple normalization. Millions of Americans, on the other hand, see this as an audacious if not revolutionary agenda to serve the interests of the state.”

. . .

“Two years ago his vision inspired voters. Today the same man often sounds strangely bloodless. Back then his cool, self-assured composure impressed many, now the same character comes across as cold, arrogant, even elitist. The right may well put on a shrill rough performance, and stand in the media spotlight. However, this president was never going to win votes on the right anyway. Obama’s historic victory in 2008 was created by the middle of American society—the independent voters and the suburbanites. It is this center that has abandoned him.”

. . .

SPIEGEL ONLINE writes:

. . .

“If there was one true victor on election night then it was the Tea Party movement. . . . What matters now is whether the Tea Party can manage to establish itself as an independent power in Washington, as a voice of dissent next to the Republicans—in order to profit even more from the wave of dissatisfaction that is sweeping the land.”

“Then anything would be possible in two years. Even the prospect of the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, as the first female president of the United States.”

The business daily Handelsblatt writes:

“It was the state of the economy that cooked up the devastating defeat for Barack Obama in the congressional elections. And it could also be the economy that disappoints him when it is time for his re-election bid in two years. After all, a rescue is nowhere in sight. Congress threatens to be paralyzed and the financial instruments are exhausted. If one were a pessimist one would say that the only hope Obama has is a miraculous reactivation of the US economy. But it remains a mystery where that is supposed to actually come from.”

See http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,727235,00.html

We are witnessing the end of Barack Obama as an American politician.

6 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

America’s Love Affair With Obama Is Over

This is the title of a terrific article by Mort Zuckerman—the owner, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of US News and World Report—which states:

The GOP did not succeed in capturing the Senate, or dethroning the Democratic leader, but with an energy boost from the Tea Party movement it certainly reflected the anger and dismay of voters who see their country foundering at home and abroad.

The results represent a sharp rebuke to President Obama, who interpreted his 2008 “vote for change” as a mandate for changing everything and all at once. Right from the start, he got his priorities badly wrong, sacrificing the need to help create jobs in favor of his determination to pass Obamacare. It was the state of the economy that demanded genius and concentration, and it just did not get it. The president will now have to respond to public anger, not with anger management and, not, please God, with still more rhetoric. The unusually revealing exit polls spell it all out—how he re-energized the Republican Party, lost the independent center, and failed to overcome the widespread sense that the country is heading in the wrong direction.

The exit polls conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool show that the economy was the dominant issue, rated at 62 percent, while healthcare was only at 18 percent. Minority voters remained loyal (9 in 10 blacks and 2 in 3 among Hispanics), but everywhere else Obama was deserted. Independents and women fled the Democrats; among white women, no less than 57 percent chose the GOP. There are some surprises for the conventional wisdom. The case for creating more jobs by government spending was rated within a hair’s breadth of reducing the deficit (37 percent to 39 percent) and opinion was evenly divided (33 to 33) on whether the stimulus had hurt or helped the economy. Voters registered their disapproval of Democratic control of Congress and of what the White House promised but failed to deliver. It is apparent that Obama didn’t seem to have understood the problems of the average American.

He came across as a young man in a grown-up’s game—impressive but not presidential. A politician but not a leader, managing American policy at home and American power abroad with disturbing amateurishness. Indeed, there was a growing perception of the inability to run the machinery of government and to find the right people to manage it. A man who was once seen as a talented and even charismatic rhetorician is now seen as lacking real experience or even the ability to stop America’s decline. “Yes we can,” he once said, but now America asks, “Can he?”

The last two years have exposed to the public the risk that came with voting an inexperienced politician into office at a time when there was a crisis in America’s economy, as the nation contended with a financial freeze, a painful recession, and two wars. The Democrats were simply not aggressive enough or focused enough in confronting the profound economic crisis represented by millions of ordinary Americans whose main concern was the lack of jobs.

Jobs have long represented the stairway to upward mobility in America, and the anxiety over joblessness became the dominant concern at a time when financial security based on home equity and pensions was dramatically eroding. No great speech is going to change the fundamental fact that millions of people are either jobless or underemployed at a time when only a quarter of the American population describes the job market as good.

Why did Obama put his health plan so far ahead of the economy? To do what the Clintons couldn’t? His rush to do it sparked a broad resistance that has only spread since the bill was passed. The public sensed that healthcare was a victory for Obama, and maybe for the Democrats, but not for the country—and contrary to Democratic hopes, public support for the measure has continued to drop to as low as 34 percent in some polls. A significant majority, some 58 percent, now wish to repeal the entire bill, according to likely voters questioned in a late October poll by Rasmussen.

As political analyst Charlie Cook put it: “Every month, every week, every day that Washington seemed focused on healthcare instead of the economy frightened people. It seemed out of touch.” It also seemed tone-deaf to the public’s concern with unemployment, the cost of government, and the sense that America was declining in its ability to compete in the world. It made Obama’s behavior seem as if he headed the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party in Congress, particularly when he allowed the major policies of his presidency to be written not by his cabinet or the White House staff but by the congressional leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Then he accepted the lopsided bills that emerged and the political corruption that accompanied them—the very processes he condemned during his campaign and that are so much distrusted by a broad section of the American public. Eighty-five percent of Americans were concerned about the cost of healthcare, but the administration focused on extending coverage.

The open purchasing of votes through the provision of special exemptions for five states and for unions, and concessions to many of the special interests in the Democratic Party, especially trial lawyers, symbolized the corruption of our politics. The 2009 omnibus spending bill alone contained 8,570 special earmarks like those that had so enraged the American public in the past. When lawmakers had no time to even read the bills, it gave the impression that what was important was passing anything, no matter how ineffectual. Obama had promised he would change “politics as usual.” He changed it all right, but for the worse. The list of his additional programs only provoked the public’s distaste for big government, big spending, and big deficits.

Today the polls indicate that the president has reached a point where a majority of Americans have no confidence, or just some, that he will make the right decisions for the country. There isn’t a single critical problem on which the president has a positive rating. It didn’t help when he kept on and on asserting that he had inherited a terrible situation from the Bush administration. Yes, enough, and sir, the country elected you to solve problems, not to complain about them.

It did not help that the administration had completely lost the support of the business community, where virtually no one has a good word to say about the administration and where there is no go-to, high-level businessman in Obama’s inner circle. The result was to make corporate America lose even more confidence in making investment decisions.

Obama’s job approval rating has fallen well below 50 percent overall, but the numbers are lower among whites and even lower among working-class whites, whose revolt may be the defining characteristic of 2010 (counting even more than the rise of the mostly white and affluent Tea Party movement). These were the famous “Reagan Democrats.” They felt that the economy was collapsing around them and that their president was out of touch. In addition, as those exit polls confirm, Democrats have for some time been losing vast pieces of their core constituencies among women, independents, college graduates, and the elderly.

As for the public’s hope for bipartisanship, Obama’s partisan approach was underlined by putting forth one of the most liberal budget programs in decades. This failure was captured most recently in a New York Times front-page story that reported that for the first 18 months of his presidency, Obama would not meet one-on-one with the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. This is not bipartisanship, and inviting a few Republican congressmen to the White House for the Super Bowl is no answer.

The public disillusionment has now hardened. In a Quinnipiac poll this summer, only 28 percent of white voters said they would back Obama for a second term if the election were held then. Still, those results do not mean the public will go Republican next time. It depends on the candidate and the party.

. . .

The love affair with Obama is over. The jobless will be the new swing voters. Unemployment, underemployment, and collapsing home equity will be the leading factors in 2012. The administration hopes the economy will have improved significantly by then, but it is running out of time and out of the confidence of the American public.

See http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/11/05/mort-zuckerman-americas-love-affair-with-obama-is-over.html (emphasis added); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-599

Barack Obama is finished as an American politician. The twin pincers of the economy and his Afghan War will seal his fate—in addition to other factors that are unknown to us as we write these words.

7 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Not Since The Pharaohs Or Roman Emperors Has A Head Of State Travelled In Such Pomp And Expensive Grandeur As Barack Obama And His WIfe, America’s “Marie Antionette”

This is the conclusion of an article in UK’s Daily Mail, which should be read by every American.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326962/Obamas-India-visit-security-erect-bomb-proof-tunnel-Gandhi-museum.html

11 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Sub-Committee Of Obama’s RAT Board To Meet At Ritz Carlton In Phoenix To Probe Stimulus Bill Waste

The Washington Examiner is reporting:

Members of a key panel created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus bill, have scheduled a meeting on November 22 to consider ways to prevent “fraud, waste, and abuse of Recovery Act funds.” The meeting will be held at the super-luxe Ritz Carlton Hotel in Phoenix, Arizona.

The group is the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, a sub-committee of the larger Recovery Accountability and Transparency board (sometimes known as the RAT board). The stimulus bill set up the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, or RIAP, to make recommendations to identify and prevent waste of the bill’s $814 billion in stimulus spending.

. . .

Hungry waste-and-abuse hunters can dine in the “casual elegance, relaxed atmosphere and uniquely inviting ambiance of the European-inspired bistro 24.” Or they can enjoy Afternoon Tea in the “uniquely warm and inviting” Lobby Lounge. And at any time, waste-and-abuse watchdogs who also enjoy golf will be “just minutes from some of the best courses in the world,” including the Tournament Players Club, the Arizona Biltmore, and several others.

And of course, there’s one other element to the story: The board is holding a meeting in Arizona, home of the immigration law that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have condemned and are challenging in court, and a state that is also the target of boycotts by a number of left-leaning groups and local governments around the country.

See http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-panel-probes-stimulus-waste—-at-Ritz-Carlton-107236598.html

It is time for Barack Obama and his “Marie Antoinette” to return to Chicago (or Honolulu), to work full time on his presidential library.

11 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Limped Toward Close Of G-20 Summit In Seoul

The Wall Street Journal is reporting:

President Barack Obama limped toward the close of the Group of 20 summit, weakened by an anemic economic recovery and an election drubbing that has left world leaders questioning U.S. authority.

In private meetings with Mr. Obama Thursday, Chinese President Hu Jintao resisted his pressure on currency revaluation. Mr. Obama also failed to secure a free-trade agreement with South Korea by his imposed Thursday deadline, a blow to a U.S. president who has pledged to double U.S. exports over the next five years.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608024073731214.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

14 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Hamlet On The Potomac

This is how the UK Telegraph’s Toby Harnden describes Barack Obama, which is consistent with my description of him as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is likely to be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

Harnden goes on to state:

Say what you like about former President George W. Bush, but his sense of timing is impeccable. Just after his successor Barack Obama took a self-described “shellacking” at the polls, Dubya was back, mocking the current occupant of the White House by his very presence.

For the 43rd President, the return must have been sweet.

Obama was elected in large part because he was the unBush: biracial not bluebood; silky tongue, not foot-in-mouth; reflective not impetuous; cool rather than hot.

During the 2008 election campaign, Obama slammed Bush at every turn. Since then, the 44th President has almost ceaselessly blamed his predecessor for everything. . . .

But the anti-Bush shtick soon wore thin. Two years after Obama was anointed, the halo around his head seemed distinctly tarnished. In his post-defeat interview with 60 Minutes, Obama was at his most listless and meandering, projecting all the certainty of a Hamlet on the Potomac.

Right on cue, Bush entered, stage Right, clutching a copy of his 497-page memoir Decision Points, a tome full of breezy certainty.

. . .

Bush must know . . . that his steadfast refusal to make any comment at all about Obama’s presidency stands in stark contrast to the derision he has received from his successor. He is self-aware enough to realise that his pithy, confident interview answers are sharply different from Obama’s wordy circumlocutions.

Who would have thought that the man hailed as a great American orator and whose stage at the 2008 Democratic convention was a faux Greek temple would be shown up in terms of the theatricality and articulation of the presidency by the man derided as a tongue-tied bumbler and global village idiot?

Obama might well reflect that all presidents, even Richard Nixon, are popular after the fact. Bill Clinton (who has magnanimously, or perhaps mischievously, praised Bush’s memoir) is currently experiencing a renaissance, especially among conservatives. . . .

Looking at the 43rd and 44th American presidents right now, it is worth reflecting that it was only the unpopularity of Bush and all he represented that enabled someone as inexperienced and unproven as Obama to ascend to power.

By the same token, perhaps only a performance in office as myopic, self-absorbed and hubristic as that of Obama could have brought about a Bush rehabilitation so swiftly.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8131268/The-Decider-returns-to-haunt-Mr-Nuance-as-George-W.-Bush-eclipses-Barack-Obama.html (emphasis added)

Harnden’s comment about Bill Clinton “mischievously” praising Bush’s memoirs is significant. Those who have followed Bill and Hillary carefully believe that everything they do is calculated, politically; and by building up Bush and praising him, Clinton is diminishing Obama and tearing him down, which plays into the possibility that Hillary will be the Democrats’ presidential candidate in 2012. :-)

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/sarah-and-todd-palin-the-big-winners/

14 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama And Geithner Thoroughly Rebuffed At G-20 Meeting In Seoul

In a scathing but very important editorial—which is why it is included below, almost verbatim—entitled, “Embarrassment in Seoul,” the Wall Street Journal states:

Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week’s G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can’t think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth.

. . . Rather than leading the world from a position of strength, Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came to Seoul blaming the rest of the world for U.S. economic weakness. America’s problem, in their view, is the export and exchange rate policies of the Germans, Chinese or Brazilians. And the U.S. solution is to have the Fed print enough money to devalue the dollar so America can grow by stealing demand from the rest of the world.

But why should anyone heed this U.S. refrain? The Germans are growing rapidly after having rejected Mr. Geithner’s advice in 2009 to join the U.S. stimulus spending blowout. China is also growing smartly having rejected counsel from three U.S. Administrations to abandon its currency discipline. The U.K. and even France are pursuing more fiscal restraint. Only the Obama Administration is determined to keep both the fiscal and monetary spigots wide open, while blaming everyone else for the poor domestic results.

The American failure was most acute on trade, as the U.S. and South Korea couldn’t agree on a bilateral pact that the two countries had signed three years ago. Mr. Obama had campaigned against that pact in 2008, let it languish for two years in office, and now suddenly wants the South Koreans to agree to new terms.

But the Koreans aren’t pushovers, and they want new concessions from America in return. They also see a less urgent need for a trade pact with the U.S. because, while Mr. Obama has fiddled, the Koreans have been negotiating other trade deals with all and sundry—not least a pact with the European Union that carries nearly identical terms to what the Bush Administration negotiated in 2007. Mr. Obama’s negotiators left Seoul empty-handed.

Meanwhile, China and other Asian economies see first-hand that rather than spurring more U.S. growth (on which Asian exporters still depend), U.S. monetary ease has flooded the developing world economies with dollars they’re not able to absorb; produced exchange-rate turmoil to the detriment of the region’s traders; and sent the world’s dollar-denominated commodity prices climbing.

Far from distancing himself from this Federal Reserve policy, Mr. Obama defended it more than once. “From everything I can see, this decision was not one designed to have an impact on the currency, on the dollar,” Mr. Obama said in Seoul. “It was designed to grow the economy.”

But this defense will only confirm to most of the world that the goal of U.S. monetary easing is solely domestic and political. Isn’t the U.S. central bank supposed to be independent? Mr. Obama may come to regret his political embrace of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke if commodity price increases flow through to consumer prices and leave Americans feeling poorer than they already feel.

The Administration’s dubious monetary theories also led it to waste valuable political energy pushing an unlikely deal with China to revalue the yuan (and devalue the dollar). Instead Mr. Obama could have argued for reforms to China’s capital account that would do some genuine good. China’s exchange rate by itself has not contributed to global imbalances, but China’s capital-account regulations have.

In particular, the fact that Beijing sterilizes capital inflows and recycles them into U.S. government debt instead of allowing capital to enter and exit more freely contributes to a global misallocation of resources. Mr. Geithner is too busy focusing on the exchange rate to notice, let alone to respond to Beijing’s complaints about U.S. monetary instability by challenging China to liberalize its own capital account.

The world also rejected Mr. Geithner’s high-profile call for a 4% limit on a nation’s trade surplus or deficit, which would amount to new political controls on trade and capital flows. This contradicts at least three decades of U.S. policy advice against national barriers to the flow of money and goods. We don’t like to see U.S. Treasury Secretaries so completely shot down by the rest of the world, except when they are so clearly misguided.

***

None of this should be cause for celebration, because a world without American leadership is a more dangerous place. The U.S. is still the world’s largest economy, the issuer of its reserve currency, and its lone military superpower. No other nation has the will or capacity to lead the way the U.S. has for 70 years, so faltering American influence will produce a vacuum in which every nation can seek narrow advantage.

If Mr. Obama wants to restore his economic leadership, both at home and abroad, he needs an urgent shift in priorities. Strike a deal with Republicans to extend the current tax rates across the board, pursue the spending cuts proposed by his own deficit commission, end the regulatory binge that has constrained America’s animal spirits, stop trying to direct capital toward political mirages like “green jobs,” and press Congress to pass the Korean and other trade pacts.

The world will follow American leadership again only when it sees policies that restore robust U.S. economic growth.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575609770024501384.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion (emphasis added)

14 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Will Hillary (And Bill) Run Against Obama?

Political pundit and former adviser to Bill Clinton, Dick Morris, argues:

She is far too cautious and intertwined with the Administration to be the first to move against Obama. Just as Bobby Kennedy needed a Eugene McCarthy to test the waters for a primary challenge to Lyndon Johnson in 1968, so Hillary Clinton will look to others to try out Obama’s vulnerability to a liberal challenge. As with Kennedy, if it works, she’ll probably jump in. If it doesn’t, she’ll stay on as Secretary of State.

There are three possible contenders who might enter Democratic Primaries against Obama: Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and Jerry Brown.

. . .

Whoever rises to the occasion, nature abhors a vacuum and politics likes it even less. As Obama struggles to compromise with the GOP House and to keep support from his terrified and slim Senate majority, his drift to the center is likely to spark greater left wing animus. They won’t like his budget cuts and they will be outraged by his likely extension of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. His compromises on the right will incite a candidacy on the left. Just watch.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-may-face-left-wing-primary/; see also http://theweek.com/article/index/210161/could-obama-face-a-primary-challenge-in-2012 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-627

Obama’s failed policies in Afghanistan are apt to trigger far-Left animus as well, similar to what happened to Lyndon Johnson in 1968, when he was prevented from running for reelection because of Vietnam.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

14 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Tries To Bribe Israel, Which Is Outrageous

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, have offered a package to the Netanyahu regime in Israel, which includes “20 stealth fighter jets worth $3 billion and a promise to veto anti-Israel proposals raised in the U.N. Security Council during the next year, including a potential Palestinian bid to seek international support for a unilateral declaration of statehood.” All of this is reportedly in exchange for Israel “renew[ing] its partial West Bank construction moratorium for 90 days,” which is patently absurd, a travesty, and another irresponsible waste of American taxpayers’ monies by Obama.

See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mideast-talks-20101115,0,455416.story

Netanyahu should not be rewarded for anything (see, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/israels-senseless-killings-and-war-with-iran/). However, the package demonstrates that Obama and Hillary—the possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2012 (see, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/#comment-968 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/sarah-and-todd-palin-the-big-winners/)—are serious about trying to jump start the peace talks, which Netanyahu scuttled.

15 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Should Not Be A Candidate For Reelection In 2012

In an important Washington Post op-ed piece entitled, “One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012″—which echoes what was said in my article above, and in my postings beneath it—two Democratic pollsters and advisers to Presidents Clinton and Carter respectively, Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell, have written:

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.

The best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as Americans, rather than the politics of the moment—or of the 2012 campaign.

Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible. Obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president’s political prospects.

Obama himself once said to Diane Sawyer: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” He now has the chance to deliver on that idea.

. . .

[I]f he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus. And yes, the United States will need nothing short of consensus if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control, to name but one issue.

. . .

Moreover, if the president were to demonstrate a clear degree of bipartisanship, it would force the Republicans to meet him halfway. If they didn’t, they would look intransigent, as the GOP did in 1995 and 1996, when Bill Clinton first advocated a balanced budget. Obama could then go to the Democrats for tough cuts to entitlements and look to the Republicans for difficult cuts on defense.

On foreign policy, Obama could better make hard decisions about Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan based on what is reasonable and responsible for the United States, without the political constraints of a looming election. He would be able to deal with a Democratic constituency that wants to get out of Afghanistan immediately and a Republican constituency that is committed to the war, forging a course that responds not to the electoral calendar but to the facts on the ground.

If the president adopts our suggestion, both sides will be forced to compromise. The alternative, we fear, will put the nation at greater risk. While we believe that Obama can be reelected, to do so he will have to embark on a scorched-earth campaign of the type that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election, which divided Americans in ways that still plague us.

Obama owes his election in large measure to the fact that he rejected this approach during his historic campaign. Indeed, we were among those millions of Democrats, Republicans and independents who were genuinely moved by his rhetoric and purpose. Now, the only way he can make real progress is to return to those values and to say that for the good of the country, he will not be a candidate in 2012.

Should the president do that, he—and the country—would face virtually no bad outcomes. The worst-case scenario for Obama? In January 2013, he walks away from the White House having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. He will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. He will, at last, be the figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. History will look upon him kindly—and so will the public.

. . .

We have both advised presidents facing great national crises and have seen challenges from inside the Oval Office. We are convinced that if Obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202846.html

Of course Schoen and Caddell are correct. However, given Obama’s overarching narcissism, it is doubtful that he will follow their recommendation; and the dire consequences that they predict—and worse—will become all too real for Americans.

15 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Pelosi In Political Purgatory, Dems In Turmoil

This is the title of an AP article, which states:

The petite woman in regal purple edged her way behind a raucous mob of reporters awaiting the next speaker of the House, a brutal midterm election behind her and an unclear future ahead.

Attuned for four years to the comings and goings of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, few in the press klatch noticed—and none followed her. The spotlight and the microphones now awaited not the California Democrat, but Ohio Republican John Boehner.

Change at the top, the populist battle cry in the 2010 midterm elections, already has taken hold around Pelosi in the final days of her history-making speakership. Dethroned by an angry electorate and defending her role leading the Democratic caucus, Pelosi gavels in the lame duck session of Congress this week in a state of political purgatory, suspended between the past and future.

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101115/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_s_purgatory

This will be Barack Obama’s political fate as well, in the not-too-distant future. It is merely a function of time.

22 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Does Not Deserve A Second Term, American Voters Say

According to a Quinnipiac poll:

President Barack Obama does not deserve a second term, American voters say 49-43 percent, and he is in a statistical dead heat with possible Republican challengers Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. President Obama leads Sarah Palin 48-40 percent.

. . .

Democratic voters say 64-27 percent they do not want anyone to challenge President Obama for their party’s nomination in 2012.

“The Democratic base remains squarely behind President Barack Obama when it comes to his re-election, but his weakness among independent voters at this point makes his 2012 election prospects uncertain,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

See http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1538; see also http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AK1VO20101122

Independent voters, such as your truly, are the swing voters who make the difference!

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/

23 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Sinks Some More

In an article entitled, “Lowest ever: Obama job approval sinks to 39%, as even Democrats’ support melts away,” the Los Angeles Times is reporting:

President Obama has passed the Big 4-0—going the wrong way.

Turns out voters were not simply satisfied to spank the Democrat and his party in the Nov. 2 midterm elections with historic losses in the House of Representatives.

Obama’s job approval rating as calculated by the Zogby Poll has now sunk to 39%, a new low for his 22-month presidency that began with so much hope and excitement and poll numbers up around 70. As recently as Sept. 20, his job approval was 49%.

A whopping 60% now disapprove of his job, up from 51% disapproval Sept. 20.

Obama now trails in hypothetical 2012 matchups against Republicans Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the next Bush, Jeb.

And, oh, my! Lookee here! Obama has even fallen into a statistical tie with none other than Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor. How embarrassing that is because other polls have shown a majority of Americans believe she is unqualified for the presidency. So it appears many have now decided, on second thought, Obama looks that way too.

Obama began losing the support of independents in the summer of 2009, as he responded to polls showing voter concerns focused on the economy by staging 59 town hall meetings on healthcare. Independents were a crucial part of his coalition win in 2008 but have now dwindled to 39%.

Only 6% of Republicans, not surprisingly, approve of Obama’s job performance. But younger voters, also crucial in the ex-state senator’s convincing defeat of John McCain, now approve by only 42%.

Nearly 7 in 10 likely voters say the country is on the wrong track, rarely a good sign for incumbents.

But, Zogby notes, perhaps most ominous for the president is that he’s now losing support among his own party people. His approval plopped nearly 10% in just one week, from 78% down to 72% in Zogby’s latest read.

Obama, John Zogby writes, “is failing to please more than one-fourth of his own party’s voters. This is a perilous position for the President.”

. . .

Former governor Romney fares the best against Obama (44-38%), then comes Gingrich (43%-39%), then another former governor, Jeb Bush (40%-38%), who says he is not running. Palin ties (40%-41%). Obama does, however, destroy developer Donald Trump (39%-29%) and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (32%-13%). (A separate Quinnipiac Poll Monday found Obama in dead heats with either Romney or former Gov. Mike Huckabee.)

See http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/11/obama-romney-palin.html (emphasis in original)

6 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Bush Job Approval Rating Higher Than Obama’s

This is the headline of a Politico.com article about the two presidents, which states:

George W. Bush’s job approval rating as president has spiked to 47 percent, according to a Gallup poll released Monday.

That’s 1 point higher than President Barack Obama’s job approval rating in a poll taken the same week.

This is the first time Gallup asked Americans to retrospectively rate Bush’s job performance. And it was a stunning turnaround from his low point of 25 percent in November 2008. The 47 percent number is 13 points higher than the last Gallup poll taken before Bush left office in 2009 and the highest rating for him since before Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

. . .

Bush’s 47 percent approval rating also raises serious questions about the wisdom of the White House’s decision to relentlessly attack him in the months before the Democrats’ historic losses in the midterm elections. The president had kept warning a House Republican majority would return to Bush-era policies. But Obama’s message did little to galvanize the liberal base, and independents flocked to the GOP on Election Day.

Bush’s rebound gives some credence to what he has long said—that history will eventually judge his presidency.

One of his role models is Harry Truman, who left office deeply unpopular but now gets credit for laying the groundwork to fight the Cold War. Bush sees parallels with his own efforts in the early days of the global war on terror.

See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46019.html

8 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Are We Fighting To Win Or Not? If Not, Obama Should Be Impeached!

In a fine article entitled, “Catch-and-release of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan angers troops”—written by Sara A. Carter, its national security correspondent—The Washington Examiner has reported:

More than 500 suspected Taliban fighters detained by U.S. forces have been released from custody at the urging of Afghan government officials, angering both American troops and some Afghans who oppose the policy on the grounds that many of those released return to the battlefield to kill NATO soldiers and Afghan civilians.

And those numbers understate the problem, military officials say. They do not include suspected Taliban fighters held in small combat outposts or other forward operating bases throughout the region who are released before they ever become part of the official detainee population.

An Afghan official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that President Hamid Karzai’s government has personally sought the release of as many as 700 suspected Taliban fighters since July, including some mid-level leaders. “Corruption is not just based on the amount of money that is wasted but wasted lives when Taliban return only to kill more NATO forces and civilians,” said the official, who opposes what he considers corruption in the Karzai administration.

. . .

A marine stationed in southern Afghanistan’s volatile Helmand province told The Examiner that efforts to detain insurgent fighters are “worthless.”

. . .

For American combat troops in Afghanistan, the release of suspect Taliban is seen as a symptom of the corruption of the Karzai government.

See http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2010/12/catch-and-release-taliban-fighters-afghanistan-angers-troops; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/are-afghanistan-iraq-and-pakistan-hopeless-and-is-the-spread-of-radical-islam-inevitable-and-is-barack-obama-finished-as-americas-president/

The idea that Americans might be dying or getting injured—or being subjected to the risks of both—for nothing, smacks of Vietnam. If the rules of engagement in Afghanistan prevent our military from winning, we ought not be there at all, and we should leave the country immediately.

This is tragic; and it may be a function of a war being run by an anti-war, far-Left American president on behalf of a corrupt Afghan government run by Hamid Karzai. If it is true, impeachment proceedings should be commenced immediately against Barack Obama, and he should be removed from office!

10 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Symptomatic?

Obama smoking

The White House is reporting that Barack Obama is still trying to kick the habit, which is not surprising. He has an addictive personality, which he was candid about admitting in his book, “Dreams from My Father”:

Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101209/ap_on_he_me/us_obama_smoking and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

3 10 2011
Paul

obama is a racist, he is both racist against whites and blacks because they are both Americans. Thats right no capital O because he doesnt deserve it.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 157 other followers

%d bloggers like this: