THE REAL STATE OF THE UNION

Last night, President Barack Obama delivered his third State of the Union Address to Congress.





The annual rite of passage, prescribed by the Constitution, is basically a performance review of the President. It is intended to update Congress on what the President has accomplished during the prior year and what he intends to accomplish going forward.

And, it is in this sense, that President Obama's speech last night was a failure.

If Only There Were A Button For That

This afternoon, the federal government will conduct a first-ever nationwide emergency notification drill by sending a single EAS Activation message directly from the White House to every television and radio in the country at the same time.

The purpose of the test is to assess the President’s ability to communicate with the entire nation during a time of national emergency and to thereby lead us out of crisis.

We think it’s very reassuring to know that there’s essentially a button in the White House that the President could push if things ever get really, really bad.

But, cynically, we wonder why there isn’t a similar button in the White House for times when things are… well… just pretty bad.

For example, shouldn’t there have been some sort of alarm sounded when we learned in October, 2009 that one in ten Americans was unemployed -- the highest that rate has been in a long time? All we heard was radio silence.

Wasn’t it a crisis when our national debt hit $12 trillion… or $13 trillion… or $14 trillion? We didn’t see any response.

Didn’t anyone want to hit some sort of button when the bottom fell out of the housing market? How about when foreclosures and bankruptcies skyrocketed? No one stopped it.

Sure, we know it’s apples and oranges. It’s not like the President lives in some Staples commercial where he has a magic button to press which magically fixes problems.

Yet, at some level, this is what the 2012 elections are all about.

Basically, America sent Barack Obama to the White House back in 2008 to fix things, most notably the economy. Now, in the present day, Americans are disappointed because President Obama failed. The nature of the failure is important: President Obama didn’t just fail to fix problems, the problems actually got a lot worse during his term while he made no perceivable effort to remedy them.

America sent Barack Obama to the White House to hit the button for them. He didn’t.

In 2012, Barack Obama is accountable for all of these problems as the incumbent. As Harry Truman said, when it comes to the presidency, “The buck stops here.” Even if people believe that a previous administration, or Congress, or greedy corporate robber barons, or just an unfortunate turn of events worldwide are to blame for our ills, as Americans we typically hold our president chiefly accountable for problems we face as a nation.

So, when he hits that emergency button later today, maybe President Obama should stop and think about how quickly he needs to get his act together and figure out what button he needs to press to start fixing things. After all, in less than 60 days, Americans are going to start pushing buttons and pulling levers of their own -- at the voting booth -- in an effort to find someone to replace him. Someone who really knows what button to press when things go wrong.

Political sweeps week starting early

According to several news media outlets, President Obama has requested a joint session of Congress to be called on September 7 for the purpose of announcing a new jobs plan.

We have mixed reactions to this news.

As to the fact that the President is purporting to do something about the fact that there are about 14 million Americans out of work: good.

As to the fact that the plan will undoubtedly do little to address the real problems underlying unemployment, while possibly adding to the national debt: bad, but in fairness we'll keep an open mind until we hear the speech.

As to the fact that it will have taken him about 960 days into his presidency to take action on the most pressing domestic issue: pathetic.

As to the fact that the President is looking to make the announcement on the same day as a planned nationally-televised debate between candidates for the Republican nomination to replace him: curious. Objectively, we admit it would be difficult for the President to schedule anything these days without claim that there is at least a tinge of politics to what he's doing. On the other hand, are we seriously supposed to believe this was the only time in four years that the President was available to announce a jobs plan?

As to the opportunity facing Republican candidates in the face of this news: enormous. Basically, President Obama is giving them fodder to use against him in the debate. He's teeing it up perfectly. The candidate best able to make the case against the President and his plan will replace him in January, 2013.

We can't imagine that this news is sitting very well with the people over at NBC (the network hosting the GOP debate) or with Speaker Boehner. Here's hoping that NBC proceeds with the debate as planned, and that Speaker Boehner says a majority of the House is planning to be busy that night listening to other people who may actually have credible ideas to grow jobs (but that the President is, of course, welcome to use the room).

Barack's Buffett Bathtub Bailout

Warren Buffett has been a political supporter of President Barack Obama for a long time.

Buffett endorsed Obama's 2008 candidacy early on. He's advised the President on economic policy and ways to promote investment in the American economy, reportedly as recently as this past Monday while the President was on vacation in Martha's Vineyard.

And, Buffett reportedly plans to hold a $10,000-a-ticket fundraiser for Obama's reelection campaign next month. (Read more here...)

Buffett's support for Obama is certainly not unique. But today, Buffett did what virtually no other American could do to support Obama's chances for reelection in 2012 - he personally stimulated the economy by making a $5 billion personal investment in Bank of America.

Is this an Obama bailout straight from Buffett's bathtub?

The motive is clear. Recently, Buffett wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he lamented Washington's "coddling of the rich." It was plainly in support of oft-used Obama talking points about the need for the wealthy and large corporations to "pay their fair share." Now, it seems, Buffett is literally putting his money where his mouth is, and he's doing it at a time when Obama most needs support.

Not that there's anything at all wrong or improper with that, of course. There isn't. Like every other American, Warren Buffett is free to invest his money where and as he pleases.

We just think it's curious that one of America's wealthiest citizens would choose to make this investment in Obama's political future now. History shows it's a bad bet to bet against Warren Buffett, and we have no doubt he will reap a hefty profit from Bank of America. But, when it comes to backing Obama in 2012 - a president with high disapproval ratings, high unemployment and skyrocketing national debt - we think this might just be one investment where Buffett takes a bath.

The tale of the tape

We could say a lot about what we think of President Obama. But we don't have to. Check out this video we found on YouTube, which pretty much says it all.

Amidst good news, the hidden danger of the “Obama Doctrine”

President Obama addressed the nation on Wednesday night to formally announce his plans to withdraw 33,000 service personnel from Afghanistan by next September, reducing America’s presence in that country by about one-third to 68,000 troops.

Before we say anything else about the President’s speech, we want to make several points very clear. We have the utmost respect and gratitude for America’s military. We honor their commitment, their sacrifice and their accomplishment without qualification. And, we welcome these 33,000 soldiers home with open arms. We also give President Obama credit for honoring a commitment he made at West Point months ago to start drawing down America’s forces from Afghanistan this summer. Absent a compelling reason to continue commitment, America’s presence in Afghanistan needs to end and our troops need to come home so Afghanistan can resolve its own future for itself.

Thus, we support the basic announcement made in President Obama's speech.

However, in an attempt to make the case for bringing US troops home earlier than his top military brass wanted, President Obama made comments that relate more to future American military involvement than to the present decision regarding Afghanistan. We think these comments were unnecessary to sell the President's decision to an American public already predisposed to a reduction of force. And, more importantly, we think the President's comments are harmful to broader US foreign policy in the future. Here's why.

President Obama did not justify America’s troop withdrawal upon a claim that the mission in Afghanistan has been accomplished. He said only that we are "meeting our goals." We think this was a deliberate choice based on three factors. First, it is impossible to claim definitive victory because the mission at stake has not been clearly articulated (by Presidents Bush or Obama) in recent years, particularly as the hunt for Al Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden shifted to Pakistan and the Arabian Peninsula. Second, claiming satisfaction of the mission would implicitly require the President to claim that America’s involvement in Afghanistan has rendered America safe, which is a risky proposition even after the killing of Usama Bin Laden and the apparent disruption of Al Qaeda’s network worldwide. Third, politically, President Obama did not want risk a Bush-style "Mission Accomplished" speech in the shadow of what he predicted still would be some future "dark days" in Afghanistan.

This left the President in the unenviable position of risking the perception of a military defeat or a retreat in the absence of a claim of victory. To avoid this conclusion, President Obama deftly attempted to pivot the message in his speech. He claimed that the withdrawal of troops is the result of waning public support for the war and a popular desire to refocus national attention on domestic matters (something President Obama called “nation building at home”). In other words, the President’s speech was not about victory or defeat, it was about shifting priorities. (It also was about building his political base and satisfying concerns expressed by his supporters going into 2012. Check out this link and this link of the President's Communications Director being booed by progressive activists at a recent conference.)

However, this argument alone is not enough to avoid the appearance of a retreat. To convincingly sell the case that America can simply leave Afghanistan because it is growing tired of war, President Obama had to downplay the original justification for America’s involvement in Afghanistan. To make a long story short, Obama told us that America can pull 33,000 troops out of Afghanistan at will because having them in Afghanistan is less important than solving other problems we face as a nation. And, to make this argument, the President was ultimately forced to put America's involvement in Afghanistan into context, which made him extrapolate his view of the Afghanistan conflict to a broader statement of foreign policy.

Thus, for the first time in his presidency, Obama articulated a doctrine for American military involvement overseas.

The Obama Doctrine calls for greater investment to solve domestic problems with a more limited military commitment overseas, employing a responsible investment of resources on a more targeted basis, and acting in concert with other nations.

"Already this decade of war has caused many to question the nature of America's engagement around the world. Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. Others would have America over-extended, confronting every evil that can be found abroad.

We must chart a more centered course. Like generations before, we must embrace America's singular role in the course of human events. But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened, we must respond with force -- but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas. When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don't have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we're doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground, but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their own destiny."

Transcript of the President's Address to the Nation, June 22, 2011

This, we believe, is the hidden future danger of Obama’s speech.

We can all agree on certain things. America is a peaceful nation. We seek a peaceful world where people live in harmony sharing a commitment to certain shared values; namely, a respect for human rights, freedom, democratic self-governance, and an open economy with free trade between nations. America has no desire to pick fights across the world. However, there must be a constant realization that our basic world view is not shared universally by all people. Scattered between America’s friends are people across the world who seek to inflict harm on Americans and on the American way of life. With regard to those people, our enemies, the message from America must be powerful, clear and consistent: we claim a unilateral right to act to protect ourselves from all threats, and we will employ whatever means are necessary to combat them.

President Obama undermined both parts of this fundamental foreign policy principle in his speech by calling for targeted involvement as a weapon of choice and by implying that America’s foreign policy is subject to buy-in by a coalition of willing allies. America’s strength and perception as a leader are based on its ability to reserve the right to act – as broadly and forcefully as possible, and alone if necessary – to protect its self-interest. America doesn’t need to ask permission to protect itself, and we don’t need to hold back. Despite the admitted problems we confront today, there is no domestic problem important enough for us to sacrifice these important tenets of our foreign policy.

If we want America to be safe and secure, then it's never a good idea to tell the "bad guys" that we're going to go after them in the future by charting a "more centered course." It would have been far better to simply tell the American people what the President has said before -- that the troop surge worked, so we don't need as many troops in Afghanistan, and some can come home. Period.

Ultimately, we think President Obama needs to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time, and his inability to do so is embarrassing to America. America’s greatest leaders are known for their ability to promote powerful foreign and domestic policies. There can and should be no trade-off between the two, as the future of our nation depends on the strength of both. By admitting that America needs to limit its foreign policy in order to resolve its domestic problems, President Obama has severely compromised America’s place of leadership across the world. He also overplays the success of the daring but small-scale raid that captured Usama Bin Laden and the NATO air campaign in Libya, overestimating their ability to serve as models for future military policy.

Obama's Doctrine is a dangerous message to send to America’s enemies across the world, one which was unnecessary to state in his speech in order to sell the American public on his plan to withdraw troops, and one which simply cannot be ignored amidst the justifiable relief felt by us all as our soldiers come home from Afghanistan this year.

Oil prices on the rise again, thanks to Iran, Libya and Venezuela

It might be hot outside today, but don't gas up that car for a summer vacation just yet.

Gas prices are about to go up again.

The world's financial markets are in a dither as OPEC ended what some have called its "worst meeting ever." Member nations apparently left the meeting without an agreement to increase oil production, which is already causing oil prices to spike.

CNBC has a story about the meeting on its Web site, which you can read here.

There are lots of things to say about this situation, not the least of which is the crushing effect that a further gas price spike would have on our economy this summer.

But what we want to highlight is the unsettling reality that, according to the CNBC report, the situation at OPEC was the direct result of seven member states who dissented: Libya, Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Venezuela, Iraq and Iran.

Do we even need to mention that there are several terrorist states on this list of nations who directly control the price and availability of one of the most important natural resources in the American economy? NATO countries have been bombing Libya with airstrikes since March. Iran, which holds the OPEC presidency, is under sanctions for developing nuclear weapons. Venezuela is openly critical of the United States. And, then there's Iraq, where American sacrifice has been huge in recent years. Don't they at least kind of owe us one?

Yet, today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Moamar Gaddafi, Hugo Chavez and others voted to make you pay more for gas this summer.

This is similar to the situation with the US national debt, a large amount of which is held by foreign countries. China alone has over a trillion dollars of US debt holdings (though it recently divested a large chunk of its short-term debt holdings, and has been shifting investment to Japanese long-term debt in recent days).

The sad truth is that much of the United States economy is subject to the control of foreign investors, many of whom are not exactly Uncle Sam's best friends. This isn't a new trend. And, it's not a Republican/Democrat problem. These are American problems, and they require American solutions. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and trim our domestic spending/debt, so we can be more self-reliant. Fast.

Look, part of the reason why Donald Trump struck a nerve with the American public in his brief and ill-fated flirtation with the presidency is that he was plain-spoken in dealing with these issues. Check out this video. The players and positions at OPEC changed since Trump's speech, but his message was clear and on-point. When you think about it, why is Angola going to tell Americans how much we're going to pay at the gas pumps and how many jobs will be lost due to high gas prices in America this year? Donald Trump might not have been the guy, but don't we need someone to stand up for America at times like this?

So, what's President Obama's next move? What is his plan to get us out from under the thumb of foreign nations? What's the solution for gas prices? Much of the President's recent energy policy has been focused on US pricing, not on foreign countries seeking to impose high prices on us. And, what's the deal going to be on the debt ceiling? The President's recent announcement was to invite Speaker Boehner out for golf. We need bigger action in Washington to solve these problems.

Everybody plays the fool, sometime

In today's electronic age, political candidates bask in the limelight of the media on a near-constant basis. Every move they make, every word they utter is under constant scrutiny. And, usually, they like it because it suits their purposes.

Unfortunately, we're all human. And, when you find yourself in a position like that, it's usually only a matter of time before you make some sort of gaffe, big or little. It's kind of the political equivalent of the old adage, 'If you live by the sword you die by the sword.'

As we see it, that's what happened to Sarah Palin on a recent trip to Boston, where she recounted Paul Revere's midnight ride in a... well, somewhat less than completely scholarly way. And, of course, the press was quick to seize upon it:

Here's the link.

OK. Probably not her best moment. But, we have to take exception with the hoards of comments we've seen over the past few days that claim this video is evidence that Sarah Palin is "stupid."

This isn't a new phenomenon. Take, for example, former Vice President Dan Quayle, whose entire career is remembered by many to this day for the famous incident where he had a problem spelling the word "potato[e]".

If you think about it, why is Palin's experience any different from what happened to President Obama on his recent trip to Westminster Abbey, where he mistakenly signed the guest book with the wrong date (24 May 2008 instead of 24 May 2011).

This is a pretty serious mistake. After all, asking someone "what year is it?" is one of the first questions they ask people after they get hit in the head, just to make sure they don't have a serious brain injury.

Our point is that no one read into the President's mistake. There were comments about it, especially in the blogosphere, but no one seriously questioned his mental capacity, his intelligence, etc. It was just an innocent, fleeting "mistake." No need to invoke the 25th Amendment or anything. Fair enough. But, why is it OK for people to hang on Sarah Palin's statement, four days after it was made, and to raise so many questions about her knowledge of history, her intelligence, etc.?

We're tired of the double standard. We say, people should at least be equal opportunity. If the media is going to give President Obama a pass for his mistake (which even we're willing to concede was just an innocent flub), then Sarah Palin should get the same treatment.

Just for the record, there are reports today that Sarah Palin was actually more right than wrong about her depiction of Paul Revere's midnight ride. Check out this link. Sadly, for President Obama, it ain't 2008 anymore.

Barack and Michelle's Excellent European Adventure Continues

Our recent posts on President Obama and his trip to Europe have generated lots of comments from some of our left-leaning friends.

One of the most frequent responses is the claim that President Obama is overseas to attend the G8 economic summit and to attend to other serious foreign policy business.

Well, here is how NBC's Today Show (not exactly known to be a bastion of conservative talk) has summarized the President's trip so far. You be the judge.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Enough with the presidential pub crawl

If you ask us, the President's trip to Ireland today seems like a waste of time and it's a distraction from more pressing issues, not the least of which is the President's recent gaffe regarding US-Israeli foreign policy.

Quite frankly, it's "silly" campaign public relations by the White House meant, among other things, to reinforce the President's release of a long form birth certificate back in April.

But hey, when it comes to "silly," we didn't coin the phrase. Check out the juxtaposition of these quotes from the President:

"We do not have time for this kind of silliness... We've got better stuff to do. I've got better stuff to do."
President Barack Obama, April 27, 2011, commenting on the release of his long form birth certificate and the need to refocus on political issues such as the budget crisis, rising gas prices and the nation's debt ceiling.

"My name is Barack Obama, of the Moneygall Obamas. And I've come home to find the apostrophe that we lost somewhere along the way... 'Is feidir linn', Yes we can."
President Barack Obama, May 23, 2011, on the first leg of a European trip, celebrating his ancestral ties to Ireland.

Look, we have nothing against artfully-crafted campaign stops (in fact, we admire them), and we're honestly not trying to resurrect the so-called 'birther movement' (no takers for that argument here). Our point is that the White House is delivering a mixed public message to suit its own purposes, and the hypocrisy and lack of leadership are worth noting.

Either the President's ancestry is an issue worth our collective national attention or it's not. If it's not worth talking about - as the White House told us back in April, and as we're still willing to concede - then why are we being dragged through events orchestrated by the White House to reinforce the image of the President's Irish ancestry in an election cycle?

Enough with the presidential pub crawl. Enough silliness. Let's move on to talking about the issues the President himself has said need our attention, including: foreign policy; how to get people back to work; how to lower the cost of gasoline, houses and groceries; and, how to resolve a $14 trillion national debt.

President Obama shows himself to be a foreign policy failure

President Obama's remarks on Middle East peace yesterday are the latest in a series of foreign policy gaffes by the present administration which are severely undercutting American influence abroad and disadvantaging our country internationally.

Reminiscent of remarks the President delivered in Cairo early in his first term, President Obama yesterday spoke about the importance for people in the Middle East to rise up and call for democratic institutions, and he pledged the support of the United States for such efforts. He also renewed calls for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, calling for a non-militarized Palestinian state to exist alongside Israel, according to borders set forth in 1967 (with mutually-agreed swaps) and predicated on an Israeli military withdrawal.

Calling for peace and democracy is never wrong. But, the way you wish to bring about such conditions can be wrong. And we believe President Obama's policy is wrong on several levels.

Most of all, President Obama's new policy is damaging to American relations with Israel, our long-standing strategic ally and partner in the Middle East. To this day, Israel remains under near-constant attack from forces within the areas from which President Obama seeks military withdrawal. It is plainly unfair to demand that the Israeli government withdraw troops from these regions without guarantees for domestic safety, of which there are none. It is also unfair to ask Israel to retreat back to 1967 border lines after more generous commitments were made by our government back in 2004 - and since, by the President's own admission, it has been the Palestinian side that has failed to attend peace talks since then.

Immediately after President Obama's speech, social media and online outlets erupted with reports of Israeli discontent with the President's remarks. His supporters rushed to his defense, claiming it was just a speech and that it was simply stating what America has been saying all along. But, if that's true, why the big speech with all the buildup, and what was the benefit to giving a speech that only made people mad? It's obviously a shift in policy. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said President Obama "threw Israel under the bus" with his speech yesterday, and we couldn't agree more with that assessment. We give credit to Romney for being the first and most forceful to call out the President and for standing up for a more responsible American policy.

The President's call for populist uprising and democratization is also dangerous. We acknowledge a romantic side of this appeal, based deeply in American understandings of democracy dating back to our own revolution. But such is not the case in the Middle East today. There is no assurance that populist forces seeking to end totalitarian government wish to impose democracy, or that they will even be pro-Western in their views. And, calling for the people of the Middle East to solve leadership problems on their own is a passive-aggressive foreign policy that diminishes the leadership position of the United States in the region. It is also difficult to reconcile this position with other parts of American foreign policy, most notably our stance on human rights violations in China. (Although, that gets tougher to talk about when you have a choking $14 trillion national debt, a lot of which is held by China, doesn't it?)

Unfortunately, we can't say we are surprised. This is the latest in a pattern of missteps by the Obama Administration that have severely diminished American leadership in the foreign policy arena and undercut American influence on the international stage.

For example, President Obama has fundamentally misunderstood relationships the United States has cultivated with Europe for decades. He has diminished priceless ties with Great Britain, forsaking them instead for an enhanced relationship with France. This is a move which not only undercuts American strategic alliances, but also alters the balance of power in Europe in untested and undesirable ways. (It also appears to have gotten the president uninvited to the royal wedding.)

Then, take the case of Russia. Our relationship with the former Soviet Union has been largely ignored by the Obama administration, to the extent that Russian President Medvedev recently announced concern that a new Cold War climate is developing. We're not saying the United States should concede its position to Medvedev's tough talk, which came in the context of opposing a new missile defense shield for Europe. We're just saying that it is in America's best interests to have an active relationship with Russia, even if that relationship draws a hard line, than to ignore Russian influence - which persists in areas of concern in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

At present, the United States appears to have no policy on development in Central and South America. There appears to be no discussion of the future of Cuba, our communist neighbor to the South. North Korea and Iran, pronounced by the Bush Administration to be part of an "Axis of Evil," seem not to really be on this administration's radar screen anymore. The list goes on and on.

The bottom line is that we need an American president who is willing to stand up for American interests, to act as a domineering world leader, and to create a vision for foreign policy in an American image worldwide. President Obama is failing on all counts. And, in the process, American influence is eroding as other players move past it on the international stage. This would be a profoundly sad end to American hegemony if it is allowed to continue past the 2012 election.

America needs new leadership. Plain and simple.

Warren talks presidential politics on NECN

Meredith Warren served as a Republican political analyst on this evening's edition of Broadside with Jim Braude on NECN.

Speaking opposite Democratic analyst Sheila Capone, Warren talked about today's news regarding President Obama's birth certificate and last night's vote in the Massachusetts House of Representative regarding collective bargaining rights for public employees.

Please click on the image above or this link to watch the video online.

Barack Obama: In a Relationship with Facebook, But It's Complicated

Yesterday, America's rock star president took his message to the streets once again with a visit to Facebook's headquarters for a "town hall meeting."

Obama's money line from the gathering: As leader of the free world, he claimed a legion of 19 million friends on Facebook - but that still puts him behind Spongebob Squarepants.

Cute comment. Ba da bing.

What's interesting to us is that the President is getting a lot of coverage for his Facebook visit mostly because of the medium he chose, not the message he delivered. (For those who are interested, here is a link to the President's official remarks.) It's interesting because, with over 500 million devoted users worldwide, Facebook simply isn't a novelty anymore. Really, it's approaching the status of a public utility.

Donald Trump is burning up pop culture news with rumors of his intentions to run for president, and he's collecting enormous criticism and scorn in the process. But seeing America's novelty president sitting next to social media icon Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook's headquarters and having it live-streamed online really isn't any different from watching Donald Trump on reality television.

It ought to take more than cute comments like the Spongebob line to get re-elected President of the United States -- particularly with a nationwide unemployment rate at over nine percent, a record-breaking $14 trillion budget deficit, and a series of foreign policy troubles.

The question is: will it? We think that remains to be seen.

After all, it's soaring rhetoric, lofty promises and dramatic production value that got President Obama elected in the first place.

We assume that the President will be placed under greater scrutiny this time around as voters rate his actual performance in office, not just his ability to deliver a good speech. But we're not sure if that will happen, or if voters will be convinced that the President it trying really hard to solve long-term problems and that he needs more time to finish the job. After all, that's basically what happened here in Massachusetts with Governor Deval Patrick, who was re-elected convincingly last November despite high unemployment figures and a mounting state debt load.

Shutdown of what, exactly?

Today's national news is being dominated by talk of an impending shutdown of the federal government.

Much has been made of the list of services which presumably might be unavailable to Americans as early as this weekend.

But, before you get too concerned about the shutdown, consider this:

What did the federal government do for you last weekend that you're worried about losing this weekend?

OK, so we're being a little snarky and cynical. But, here's why that's actually an important question.

For both sides of the political debate, the budget showdown in Washington seems to be more about posturing and messaging for the 2012 election than anything else.

If most people nationwide can identify certain things right off-the-bat that make them worry about the shutdown, then that's essentially a public relations victory for President Obama and Democrats in Congress because it means that people are not worried about the size of government. Democrats are looking to blame Republicans for a failure of leadership and for proposing Draconian budget cuts that would be harmful. They are also appealing to their core constituencies to preserve funding for certain targeted programs.

On the other hand, if there's nothing most people find immediately troubling about the shutdown, or if most people actually think shutting down the government for a little while might be a good idea, then that's essentially a victory for House Republicans. They are trying to convince people that the overall fiscal health of the country is what's at stake and that government is too large, while also appealing to their core constituencies to cut funding for certain targeted programs.

The stakes are high for both sides. But the danger here is that people will be most interested in having a government that runs well, and they will be left with an overall feeling that it's Washington in general that has failed them. That's bad news for both parties trying to garner support in 2012. Take, for example, the decline in ticket sales that sometimes follows lockouts of professional sports leagues.

Is this what will happen to incumbents in 2012? Or, will one side clearly win the current public relations battle? We will probably start to get a good idea as early as next week - assuming there is no last-minute deal down in D.C.

Let's play fair

According to today's Boston Globe, national Democratic party officials are leaning heavily on Massachusetts lawmakers to delay the date of the Bay State's 2012 presidential primary election.

The story makes it clear that the motive behind the move is to front-load the national primary process with more conservative states - thereby making the selection of a more conservative GOP nominee more likely - so as to draw a sharper contrast to President Obama and increase Obama's chances of re-election.

This is the most ridiculous ploy we've heard in a long time, and we are relieved to hear that, according to the article, Bay State political leaders - particularly Secretary of State Galvin - don't seem interested in the idea.

National Democrats, it seems, are scared about President Obama's prospects for another term in office. Even the Obama campaign's launch video alludes to it.

As well they should be.

Sitting presidents generally benefit from political inertia. It falls upon their challengers to make a clear and convincing case for removing the incumbent from office.

However, in 2012, President Obama has two difficult challenges ahead of him on this front.

First (and as we have alluded to in the past in this blog), we believe it is going to be difficult for President Obama to inspire the nation the same way he did when he swept into office in 2008. His popularity was so immense then that he was frequently compared to a rock star; some took it so far as to make biblical references. For Obama, the good news is that he raised the bar in presidential politics such that there are greater-than-usual expectations on his 2012 opponents to move and inspire the nation themselves. But, the bad news is that these same expectations are on Obama himself. To win, he will have to convince people he was not just a one-hit-wonder.

Which brings us to our second point. When times are tough and achievements are scarce, the political inertia which usually benefits incumbents can become political quicksand. There is nothing a political challenger likes more than to be able to blame their incumbent rival for all the world's problems. Incumbents can weather the storm by making the challenge seem petty or unfair. But if the challenge is credible, the incumbent is in danger of losing his office.

Together, these challenges pose real trouble for Obama's 2012 campaign. The 2008 election was all about the audacious promise of hope and change. This one is about an audacious request for people to still believe in that unfulfilled promise four years later. Wars have not ended; they have expanded. The economy remains a quagmire. Foreign policy is a shambles. And, all of these things provide fodder to Republican candidates seeking to make the case that people are not "better off than they were four years ago," even if Democrats contend the President is a victim of inherited problems, political disagreement or long-term issues which take more than four years to solve.

Two Thumbs Down

It was a moment even Hollywood couldn't have scripted.

There I was, out for my early morning walk. It was a cool, crisp morning. Birds were starting to chirp. The sunrise was majestic. (No joke, there was actually a rainbow in the sky this morning.)

And, then, it happened.

A thrill went up my leg, just like Chris Matthews four years ago. It was my cell phone delivering me a feverish announcement from CNN that President Obama has formally announced his re-election campaign with an online video.

I couldn't wait to get home to watch. It made me walk faster. I was starting to get tired, but in the background, all I could hear was the voice of inspiration that had brought hope to an entire nation.

Yes I can. Yes I can. Yes I can.

Not.

Look, full disclosure here: We tend to support conservatives, so a heavily-Democratic message usually leaves us cold. But, we try hard to be open-minded in this blog, and we also usually appreciate the artfulness of a good political ad, regardless of the substance. For example, we appreciate Hillary Clinton's "It's three a.m." ad from four years ago as a goosebump-inducing piece of advertising.

So, with that said, here it is: President Obama's video is one of the worst pieces of political advocacy we have ever seen.



It's boring. It's not inspiring at all. It's devoid of any substance. It says nothing. It lacks any sort of vision. It's full of lame excuses. It's seemingly an exclamation point on the end of an unlikely presidency that has been short on meaningful accomplishment. There is no recounting of any achievements Obama has had, or leadership qualities he possesses.

The message is essentially this: We should all get together to re-elect President Obama because electing him four years ago, as a completely unknown and unqualified candidate out of nowhere, was pretty cool. So, let's do it again. One woman even says she's nervous about the campaign.

And this is supposed to be the change we can believe in? This video doesn't even do a convincing job of conveying what has been aptly called "the hopey-changey thing."

Contrast Obama's ad today with this message from early in his first campaign:



Big difference.

We think there is an important take-away from this video. Republican candidates for president this year are saddled with the challenge of basically having to out-do President Obama's campaign from four years ago in order to win. But, at the same time, Obama himself has a challenge ahead of him to one-up his own 2008 campaign. And, this video makes it look like that's a tall challenge. Like it or not, a lot of these campaigns are won or lost in the media.

Basically, this ad amounts to a call out to disenchanted 2008 Obama supporters asking them to reenergize. But it also leaves the president exceedingly vulnerable to charges that the nation is in a position that is essentially the same - if not worse off - than it was in four years ago. The Republican candidate who makes the case for this most convincingly, and who offers the clearest and most inspiring alternative, will win in 2012.

Game on.

Action in Libya is Justified but Raises Questions

Barack Obama inherited wars on two fronts when he became president: ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, he has initiated a third conflict involving United States troops in Libya.

We support the President, our troops, and their mission in Libya.

However, as with all matters of foreign policy, we think it's appropriate to ask questions along the way - and particularly at these early stages of our involvement - to determine the scope of American interests and to ensure we are on the right course.

The first question concerns the person at the center of this latest conflict, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Is American action aimed directly at removing Gadhafi from power, or is it simply aimed at blocking him from attacking his own people? We believe there is justifiable American interest in either action. However, we also think it is important to choose between the two, and right now we're not sure if that decision has really been made.

The second question also concerns Gadhafi, but it's a different one. What happens if, after an initial round of airstrikes, Gadhafi remains in power? What then? Is America prepared to escalate measures to remove him? Would the no-fly zone cease if Gadhafi remains but stops attacking his people? Military missions require clearly-defined objectives and terms of engagement to protect troops and determine success, and these questions are all important factors in determining our ultimate objectives and success in Libya.

Third, we wonder if the United States has adequately considered the consequences of this conflict. It's one thing to watch missiles flying on television and to see bombed-out buildings. It's quite another thing if American troops are captured or killed as part of the action. And then, there is the open question of whether Gadhafi will retaliate with terrorism as he did by bombing Pan Am Flight 103; or, more to the point, the question is how and when will he retaliate, and are Americans ready for those consequences? And, how will action in Libya affect our other foreign policy commitments, including ongoing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan?

We reiterate our support for this action and particularly for the brave men and women now involved in enforcing American policy militarily. However, we think all these questions need to be answered satisfactorily before the United States gets deeper into conflict to prevent a protracted and more dangerous situation from developing.

The two places we are willing to be critical of the President are:

1. President Obama faces a number of foreign policy challenges around the globe. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Egypt, and Libya name just a few areas that require urgent attention, and that doesn't even begin to address broader issues in the Middle East, China and Russia. However, taking all of these flash points together, it remains unclear what President Obama's foreign policy is. How does the American response to these foreign crises fit together into one theme? We fail to see a principled approach by the Obama Administration to these situations, other than a profound desire to keep each off of Page One of the newspaper. And that is something that we find deeply concerning.

2. We also find it concerning that, yesterday, mid-way through this crisis and with a mounting disaster in Japan, President Obama was attending a state dinner in Chile and meanwhile Vice President Biden was here in Boston at a cocktail party to raise money and rally party faithful. Who is in charge?

Presidential governing by bracket

If only all of life's conflicts could fit neatly into a nice little bracketed chart...

We're thinking that's probably what President Barack Obama was thinking recently as he proudly filled out his pick sheet for this year's NCAA basketball tournament.

Now, don't get us wrong. It's exceedingly cool that our rock star president has the wherewithal to pick college hoops champs live on television.

But, might he have had something better to do with his time?

Like, maybe, fix the economy, or solve foreign crises?

Then again, we're wondering if maybe there's something more at play.

Could it be that the president has found a new way to solve problems in the White House?

Just think about it.

How do you decide which world problem to address today? Well, just put them all into neat little brackets and... voila!

Need to choose how to spend money on new programs? Put 'em in a bracket.

Need to figure out whether existing tyrants or opposition forces should prevail in foreign conflicts? Put 'em head-to-head into brackets and see who wins.

Hey, this is easy. And totally fun.

So much fun, in fact, that we could see other politicians using it.

Governor Patrick, do you need to decide which new upstart company Massachusetts should invest in this week? Put 'em in a bracket. (Note: Evergreen Solar was his number one seed, but it got knocked out in the first round. Maybe next year.)

Massachusetts Legislature, do you need a plan for how people should get jobs in the probation department? We could just put 'em all into brackets...

Well, maybe not.

Sadly, most of life's problems don't get solved this way. They take leadership, not brackets, to address them successfully.

Obama and Patrick: Collectively Bargaining for Union Support

Can someone please tell Barack Obama and Deval Patrick that they are elected chief executives, not union cheerleaders?

Yesterday, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick made it a point to attend a rowdy protest outside the Statehouse put on by over 1,000 union members. His public statement to the angry mob:

“I’m here to deliver one very simple message, which is we don’t need to attack public sector workers to make change for the people of the Commonwealth." Link to Source: Boston Globe

This reminds us of a previous incident from 2009, when Governor Patrick hosted a meeting with fired Hyatt Hotel workers and union leaders, and threatened Hyatt Hotels with a state boycott if it refused to hire back housekeeping staff.

“But surely there is some way to retain the jobs for your housekeeping staffs, as other hotels have done, and to work with them to help the company meet its current challenges, rather than tossing them out unceremoniously to fend for themselves while the people they trained take their jobs at barely livable wages.’’ Link to Source: Boston Globe

Meanwhile, the Patrick administration is delivering a much different message to the Massachusetts private sector. For example, on efforts to increase tax collections from Massachusetts businesses next year, Department of Revenue spokesman Robert Bliss reportedly said, "You hunt where the ducks are." Link to Source: Boston Globe

This isn't just a Massachusetts phenomenon. It's also playing out on the national stage.

President Obama's political machine and Democratic party officials are reportedly working to help organize union protests around the country in unity with public labor marches in Wisconsin. Link to Source: Washington Post

AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka recently made comments claiming that he speaks with officials in the White House daily and visits the White House several times a week, while at the same time it's reported that President Obama hasn't spoken with some members of his own cabinet in years. Check out the videos in this link.

Then, there are Obama's recent comments to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he challenged the business community to "get in the game" and spend some of their money to create jobs. Link to Source: Boston Herald

It's abundantly clear to us that leaders in Washington and Massachusetts are firmly taking the side of organized labor in economic matters at the same time they are siding against business interests. Can there be any doubt why? Check out the latest report of independent expenditures in the most recent round of Massachusetts state elections. The list is filled with unions.

We happen to disagree with Obama and Patrick's one-sided support of unions. But, we think that what makes it so wrong isn't necessarily that they are making the wrong choice, it's that they are choosing sides in the first place.

The proper role of a chief executive isn't to pick sides. It's to promote the advancement of everyone. Obama and Patrick would do well to remember that they have a responsibility to help all Americans get ahead, not just those who carry union cards in their wallets.

Boston Herald Gets it Right, Obama Gets it Wrong

Today's Boston Herald editorial page has an excellent interpretation of President Obama's visit to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday.

It's a must-read for anyone trying to decipher where the current administration stands on economic policy:

Boston Herald Editorial: The 'new' Obama
President Obama actually had the nerve to go to the nation's business leaders yesterday and try out his best impersonation of President Kennedy. "Businesses," he said, "have a responsibility to America.... Ask yourselves what you can do for America."

This is the same mentality Massachusetts officials have used when dealing with Bay State businesses in recent years.

"We contend it is only fair for our largest companies to share responsibility for supporting public services they and their employees need and want."
- Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, March 5, 2008
  (my.mass.gov/Agov3/video/2008-03-05_rtest.rtf)

In both cases, it's the wrong approach.

Every business is, at its core, an investment. People invest capital (money and labor) into a business with the expectation that the business will generate a greater return for them.

We acknowledge that government has a legitimate role to tax and regulate within the economy to keep the system prosperous. We also agree with basic notions of good corporate citizenship.

But, businesses already serve the public good just by virtue of being there in the first place and providing jobs and a commercial tax base. In many cases, good corporate citizenship is alive and well. We see examples every day in our own community where business leaders make up the lion's share of those involved in civic organizations and charitable groups.

We don't agree with President Obama that Uncle Sam should be able to consider himself as basically a majority shareholder in every U.S. corporation.

When government demands a seat at the table and makes businesses work to serve the public interest as much as the private interest of their investors, the whole system gets skewed. That's when profits dry up, factories close, and jobs move overseas.

If President Obama wants to get the nation's unemployment rate down and put America back to work, he needs to stop blaming businesses and get out of their way by reducing the regulations that are hindering their growth. Businesses are already walking a tightrope in this economy. Let's not burden them even more.