As the Dems come to grips with the fact that their party ideology and the Obama agenda have pushed them far off center, party officials with have to acknowledge too, that their chosen candidate, Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general and the prohibitive favorite to win, ran a campaign based on arrogance and divine providence, as opposed to one of earnest concern for the growing unemployment rate and our unchecked national deficit.  Add to the list of negatives the low approval rating of Massachusetts Governor and Barrack friend Deval Patrick (who was conspicuously absent from this campaign and last Sunday’s Obama/Coakly rally) the perennial blue state of Massachusetts is beginning to see GOP Red.

This morning the White House puppet pundits and Obama apologists blamed Coakley’s demise on the nation’s dissatisfaction with Obamacare.  Repeatedly they ignored the fact that Massachusetts already has a near-universal health coverage program and would receive little benefit from the national agenda.  Last night, the citizens of Massachusetts sent the nation a message as they have borne witness to the massive folly of universal health care, and that message is, “it does not work.”  Coverage without cost controls at the source, namely hospitals, doctors, drug manufacturers, can only worsen our national economic picture.   For the state’s policymakers, rapidly rising health-care costs are the central problem with the plan. Since 2006, the cost of the state’s insurance program has increased by 42 percent, or almost $600 million. According to an analysis by the Rand Corporation, “in the absence of policy change, health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double to $123 billion in 2020, increasing 8 percent faster than the state’s gross domestic product (GDP).” Meanwhile, the cost of insurance premiums in the state is the highest in the nation, and double-digit rate hikes are expected again in 2010.

It is no coincidence Governor Patrick has raised taxes, even though he promised the exact opposite. Sound familiar?  Mr. Obama has often cited Massachusetts as an example of what national health care can be. However, in what is becoming a disturbing trend in White House politics, Team Obama steadfastly refuses to acknowledge, and in some cases suppresses information about the real costs involved in funding such a misguided program.  Our nation needs a comprehensive health care program for all Americans, but clearly this hodge-podge, backroom, special interest, no transparency deal Mr. Obama is trying to serve up is not the solution.

Ultimately, last night’s contest demonstrated a very real dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama’s hypocrisy and an egotistical agenda that serves only his legacy as opposed to the best interest of our country. This alone killed the Coakley campaign, and is a clear indication of the damage the President has inflicted on his own party.  With Mr. Obama’s poll numbers falling fast, many Democrats fear the Washington power game will shift back to the GOP in the next series of mid-term elections.

It took a full three days for Obama to finally make an appearance on Monday to address the nation on Homeland Security. The barrage of criticisms from Republicans was so great that the White House and its press representatives The Washington Post and New York Times floated a story entitled “Big First Year Leaves Obama Tired,” as if to excuse POTUS for his lackluster response to the developing crisis. Even after Monday’s forced appearance, the criticism grew from the right and the left, so Obama made another appearance on Tuesday wearing the new Polo shirt Michelle gave him for Christmas. Now the Polo corporation was probably giddy over the noticeable plug for their product, and I may be old fashion, but I like my President to be a little more “Presidential” during a time of crisis. And make no mistake, this is a crisis.

As a hopefully logical individual, I cannot blame POTUS for what happened aboard Flight 253, but I can find fault with his appointees. The weekend performances of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano left no doubt, after a year on the job, they are ill-equipped to handle their responsibilities. In the wake of no public appearance from Obama or Biden, Gibbs and Napolitano hit the airwaves for a ‘gaffe-filled’ 72 hours, that is now a matter of public record.

Gibbs is an arrogant and egotistical man, whose endless verbal missteps should have either earned him a reappointment or a dismissal at this point in time. On his best days, he is either an apologist or an obstructionist for the administration, but more often than not, a fountain of misinformation. His main gig seems to be releasing stories glorifying the “unprecedented” accomplishments of the Obama administration. He and Obama have used the word “unprecedented” so much, that the usage of that very word became the subject of a Politico story reprinted by news outlets worldwide. What was truly unprecedented this time was how causally the President took this threat on American life.

As for Napolitano, she is unqualified for the job. Political appointment as payback for support is nothing new in Washington. Napolitano, as Governor of Arizona was one of the first major Democrats to support Barack Obama. She was also a key member of his transition team. Napolitano came under fire after she said Sunday that “the system worked,” noting that the crew of Flight 253 “took appropriate action” to address the terrorist plot as it unfolded. But her remarks were met with instant criticism, prompting the Homeland Security chief to clarify herself during a round of media appearances Monday morning. The secretary then conceded on Monday that the system did not work.  After her Monday appearance on The Today Show, calls for resignation started to surface.

Earlier this year the Homeland Secretary faced calls of resignation when her office released a paper entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” This report famously stated that, disgruntled military veterans were vulnerable to recruitment efforts by extremist groups as risk factors for rightwing extremism. Reaction from the military was swift and Napolitano made multiple apologies for any offense veterans groups had taken at the reference to veterans in the assessment, and promised to meet with those groups to discuss the issue.

In March 2009, Napolitano told the German news site “Spiegel Online” that while she presumes there is always a threat from terrorism: “I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”  In my opinion, Napolitano’s attempt to minimize terrorism only gives comfort to our enemies.

In April 2009 Napolitano, trying to defend her plans to thicken US-Canadian border security, claimed incorrectly that September 11 attack perpetrators entered the United States from Canada. Her comments provoked an angry response from the Canadian ambassador, media, and public.

I can live with an “ass” for a Press Secretary, but Napolitano fronts the most public and perhaps the most important agency in the government today. It was clear from day one, and continues to bear true by her performance over the past 11 months, she does not have the experience to lead Homeland Security. She does not project the resolve or determination of former directors Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff to develop and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to strengthen the United States against terrorist threats or attacks. It is about time the “very tired” Mr. Obama leave the links in Hawaii and return to Washington to hand Napolitano her walking papers. It is time for the President to start taking National Security more seriously.

Why would Barack Obama call these guys any names, by conservative estimates Wall Street poured more than 100 million dollars into his campaign.  Today, POTUS urged his guests to support new Wall Street regulations and asked them to re-think those fat bonuses we keep hearing about.  Probably after that tongue-lashing he showed them Michelle’s new White House china collection.

Time for a reality check; when is this “dog and pony show” going to end?  Every time the heat gets turned up on Obama, he either creates a new committee, conducts a new survey, appoints another Czar or hosts a fruitless Jobs Summit and then gives a speech reiterating the same issues from last year’s campaign, albeit he looks a little angrier.  It’s all theatre to POTUS, no substance to the endless promises.

Obama has no advantage over the banks he met with today (actually three bankers failed to show due to inclement weather, ha ha).  They have already repaid their TARP loans.  Furthermore, these bankers do not directly provide funding to small business.  These are the guys Google calls when they’re looking for a couple of billion to ratchet up an expansion or acquisitions plan. Small businesses work with independent community banks and small lending institutions.  Those are the guys that desperately need the “no strings attached” loans that Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke doled out to the “fat cats” last year.  Obama needs to correctly identify the issue of small business lending; he needs to fund the SBA sufficiently, and streamline the process to apply for loans and halt foreclosures.  Unless those contingencies are enacted, we will not see this economy reignite in any meaningful way.

Until then, we will be treated to endless photos ops of industry leaders flying to Washington in their private jets to have “tea time” with Sasha and Malia.  As the House GOP conservatives observed today, “it’s not every day the leader of the free world blames you for a problem and then tells you to do the exact same thing that caused the problem.”

President Barack Obama who in the first 11 months of his presidency has ordered more than 50,000 American troops and an additional 35,000 mercenaries into the Afghanistan battle theater joined the long and distinguished list of Nobel Laureates. In accepting the award, Mr. Obama noted with a hint of irony “let us reach for the world that ought to be. We can understand that there will always be war, and still strive for peace.”  Irony or idiocy?

What is truly idiotic is the reaction from the liberal and progressive community expressing its disappointment at Mr. Obama’s decision.  Even his friend, Sixties radical Bill Ayers took to the streets of Chicago last week to protest the troop increase.  Many believed Obama was a man of peace. His initial claim to fame in last year’s campaign was the speech he gave in 2002 denouncing the war in Iraq (by the way, he was not in Congress at that time).  He was the Senator who boldly voted against additional funding for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006. However, if you really listened closely, dug deep beyond the rhetoric, read the interviews, Mr. Obama repeatedly stated his intentions to finish and win the war in Afghanistan. This message was clear. Obviously, Mr. Ayers and the Nobel committee did not listen or chose to ignore those words.  Did they listen closely today when he said, ”a nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history.” Finally, we now have the Obama War Doctrine, a rationalization for invasion.

Mr. Obama went on to say, “evil does exist in the world.” Sound familiar? Didn’t Mr. Bush talk incisively about an “axis of evil?” Read into this statement carefully; this year Afghanistan, next year Pakistan. Mr. Obama’s point is clear, we’re not going to kill you with our nukes, just our bullets and drones.

Theoretically, the Nobel Peace Prize should carry a truly inspirational message to the world by honoring someone who has demonstrated great fortitude in the face of adversity. I don’t blame Mr. Obama for accepting the Peace Prize, hey this is what he does, accept accolades for meager accomplishments. Today’s real shame belongs to the Nobel committee because they turned this award into a political denouncement of the Bush years, and unwarranted American aggression.  I guess Mr. Obama’s “war is good” speech left them dumbstruck and paralyzed.

For Mr. Obama, Oslo was the ultimate photo op. His ratings are sagging in Europe too, and this could really give him a needed pump.  I don’t believe it is cynical to say he is receiving this prize because he gives ‘pretty speeches.’ His rhetoric is inspirational to those who are weak and in need of a savior. If Mr. Obama had any pride, any shred of human decency he would have refused the Nobel or made a magnanimous gesture and passed it on to someone of true courage. Mr. Obama has not yet earned the right to share this honor with the likes of Martin Luther King and Bishop Desmond Tutu. Maybe someday. The only thing accomplished today was the Nobel committee succeed in reducing the aspirations of Alfred Nobel to a punchline.

President Barack Obama would have made a great character on the television series MAD MEN.  The drama about ego-driven players in the world of advertising who make an art  of the “sell” is a persona easily worn by our president.  Cool, dispassionate and manipulative, Mr Obama is the Madison Ave huckster who makes cigarette smoking cool to teenagers while ignoring the cancer risks.  Since he catapulted to the forefront of presidential contenders, Mr. Obama has been more about packaging and presentation than he has been about substance.  His next sell job will be tonight, when he addresses the American public about the war in Afghanistan.  Using the most potent weapon in his arsenal, “the speech,” he will once again serve up the bad news as if it was some slurp confection, and hope the masses will lap it up.

 During the course of the Civil War, President Lincoln spent a significant amount of time not in the oval office, he was not traveling the union in search of a photo op, or even playing secret golf games away from the eyes of the prying press.  He spent his time at the telegraph office – hours and hours of each week. He was in constant contact with his troop commanders, the men on the forefront of the war.  Mr. Lincoln was so involved he suggested troop deployments and wrote up battle plans regularly.  I guessing self-professed Lincoln scholar Obama skipped the war years while reading the great President’s bio.  Since March of this year, after his appointment of General Stanley McCrystal to lead the NATO forces, Mr. Obama forgot about the war in Afghanistan.  His contact with McCrystal was limited; apart from apparently reading the General’s weekly reports, he only spoke to the commander twice between March and August and those conversations were reported to be brief.  It took the ‘leak’ of McCrystal’s troop request, over 94 days ago, and the subsequent public outcry to get Mr. Obama to readdress Afghanistan. Up until then, it was merely a talking point.

 Obama pledged during the campaign to win the war in Afghanistan, but it is now clear the president had no idea what he was talking about.  Mr. Obama did not start this war, but once he stepped into the Oval office he assumed ownership, and in all fairness to him, the Bush administration left him a legacy of incompetence.  Every President must make strategic priorities, but since January 21^st until mid-August, our presence in the Middle East has been the backdrop for a misguided domestic agenda and an endless stream of photo ops from grade schools in Wisconsin to grocery stores in Atlanta.  Moreover, let us not forget valuable time spent on the failed Olympic bid.  While wags at the New York Times and MSNBC have praised the President for his thoughtful deliberation, morale amongst troops in Afghanistan has dropped 72%, Senior officers at the Pentagon have complained about the Commander-in-Chief’s ability to understand the complexity of the war and facilitate a solution. As reflected in the daily editorials in leading European newspapers support from our core NATO allies has deteriorated and Mr. Obama’s once high approval ratings in those countries has dropped precipitously. 

 My problem with Mr. Obama is simple;  he should have been working on a solution the day after he was elected, but he didn’t.  His focus was everywhere else but the war.  When he appointed McCystal in March and deployed additional reinforcements to Afghanistan, all he was doing was following the recommendations made by the Bush administration prior to leaving office.  Where is the Senator who chaired the committee overseeing NATO and voted against additional funding of the war in Afghanistan in 2007?  Is Mr. Obama really that hypocritical and deceptive?  Whatever his proposal is tonight, it should not have taken 94 days to reach this point.  Every day is precious on the battlefield. That’s not leadership, that’s vacillation from a man who cannot make a decision, unpopular or otherwise and too concerned with his own personal polls.  Whatever he tells us tonight, it will be a compromise, not a solution.

 In a few hours, Barack Obama: showman, marketer, hustler, will venture to West Point and stand on a podium to address our nation. Some Presidents, like LBJ, would have delivered a speech such as this from the Oval Office; others, like Truman would have released a formal declaration or held a press conference. But not Obama. He needs the big symbolic gesture.  Behind him tonight will be the ‘best and brightest’ that our nation’s military has to offer.  Mr. Obama will strike a reflective and somber tone;  he will be the reluctant warrior as he explains the importance of this war and why we must continue to send our children into battle.  He will offer a compromise to the McCrystal plan, talk about involving our NATO allies more, offer a perspective on Pakistan, suggest a potential exit strategy. He will look to the heavens and it will all sound very logical and correct. However, at the end of the day, it isn’t logical, it isn’t correct.  The loss of innocent life on both sides is totally incomprehensible, the Afghanistan government is corrupt and the Taliban has increased their influence from 30 districts at the start of the war to 165 districts. We cannot afford to wage two wars, and a potential third. Unless Obama becomes the brave leader he suggested he can be during the campaign and start withdrawal within the next 90 days, or embrace the doctrine of his supporter Colin Powell, who suggests war might be summarized as taking the size of the force you think you need, then double or better triple it. constituting “overwhelming force,” then we are in for a long, expensive and painful lesson.  Now how is that any different from Bush?

If you wanted a preview of what life will be like under Obamacare, your dose of reality came this week. A government task force said women in their 40s don’t need annual mammograms, tossing out cancer screening guidelines that have been accepted for decades. Their report didn’t argue that mammograms have saved lives, on the contrary the study finds that for every 1,000 women in their 40s who receive routine testing, two cases of cancer are detected. The study also notes that 98 out of that 1,000 will have “false positives.” Meaning something looks cancerous, but further testing proves negative. The report stated that routine mammography for women in their 40s wasn’t worth the downsides, such as “false positives” and the exposure to radiation. The panel concluded that self-breast examinations were unnecessary too, as these proved to fall within the high range of “false positive.”

Welcome the world of Obamacare, where the 85 percent of us who are satisfied with health care will now watch the core of our coverage stripped away in the name of cost control. Remember earlier this year at one of his infamous town halls the President spoke about “unnecessary procedures” driving up the cost of health care and in the future such procedures would be eliminated? Well this is where the chopping begins. Apparently to the President and his Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebeluis, saving 2 lives out of 1,000, is not worth the high cost involved. Moreover, as for those other 98 women with the “false positive,” I assume Obama and Sebeluis believe they are wasting money too. As for your granny, the panel recommends cutting off testing for women over age 75. As the President put it “maybe you’re better off taking a pain killer.”

Now where do we go from here? I predict within the next year, thanks to these new federal guidelines insurance companies will discontinue mammogram reimbursements for women under 50 and over 75 years. When Obamacare finally kicks in, coverage for mammogram testing will not be an issue for debate since the private insurers will have already established economic precedent. That my friends is how Obama will make health care affordable for everyone, by eliminating routine but necessary testing one step at a time.

Last September, in his health speech before Congress, Obama spoke about preventative procedures like “mammograms and colonoscopies” being key to keeping longterm costs down. Apparently, the President is prepared to say anything, anytime to make his argument even risking the health of the majority.

One thing you can certainly count on, the First Lady Michelle Obama will have a mammogram before she hits 50, and it will be you and I the American middle class who will be paying for it.

Despite today’s denials from White House mouthpiece Robert Gibbs, Obama was heavily invested in
the outcome of these off-year elections.  A Democratic lose can only be interpreted as a rebuke of the President,
potentially setting the tone for next year’s mid-term elections and a possible resurrection for the GOP

It is not unusual for a sitting Presidents to waste taxpayers money by boarding Airforce One and flying off to every
remote part of the country  campaigning for their party’s candidates.  However, what irritates me about Obama is that
he has spent more time rallying in New Jersey for soon-to-be departing Governor Jon S. Corzine, then he has spent in
earnest wartime discussions with General Stanley McCrystal, our CEO in Afghanistan.

I do not live in New Jersey, but Corzine’s well publicized record speaks for itself.  I doubt an endorsement from Jesus would have saved him.  It strikes me, Obama’s 5 visits to the ‘Garden State’ was less about the governor’s race and more about the President’s narcissism and his endless quest for an audience and a photo op.  Certainly  his speech on Sunday was not a rally tour-de-force in support of Corzine, as it was yet another in a series of  ‘bash and blame’ rants against Bush.

It is about time for President Obama stop whining and complaining about Bush.  O.K. we get it, we agree with
you, but you wanted this job and you will have to deal with the debris of the previous administration.  Perhaps
yesterday’s election will serve as a ‘wake-up call’ to the President.  Sir, it is time buckle down, stay in
Washington and start delivering results.

P.S.:  Today Obama is in Wisconsin talking to grade school children.  Must be nice to have so much leisure time.

I suspect Obama was never that interested or even understood the importance of Afghanistan.  His rhetoric was merely more campaign sound bites used as political strategy to advance his case against opponent and war veteran Sen. John McCain.   Certainly, the Republicans could not call him weak, or worse in the words of Archie Bunker, a ‘leftist pinko peacenik’, if he was beating the war drums and stressing victory crucial to national security.  Most assuredly, his support of Afghanistan moved some moderates and Republicans in his direction on November 2^nd.

There comes a moment in every war when you reach the point of ‘no return’. LBJ reached that threshold early in his first term with Vietnam when he ignored the advice of Clark Clifford and George Ball who suggested retreat and negotiation in favor of the “put in the troops” strategy of General Westmoreland and then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. The moment Obama decided to ignore the advice of Vice President Biden who favored a “counterterrorism” approach, and instead choose to move 21000 additional troops into Afghanistan (not to mention another 10,000 mercenaries) for a counterinsurgency strategy, he bought himself a war from George W. Bush.  One cannot help but speculate whether or not the President understood what he was committing to in March.  Was he really focused, or was this one more line item on an ambitious but misguided agenda?

Therefore, it is worth questioning what is so different now in October from his pronouncements in March that the President is wondering aloud to media pundits, if this is “the right thing?”  The answer is simple,  ‘the polls’.  As the numbers slide away from the president, and the public’s distaste for the war mounts against him, Obama is forced to recognize, as his predecessor discovered, an unpopular war is not good for re-election.  With midterms in 2010, a major Obama misstep could cost Democrats the gains they have made over the last five years.  The president’s core liberal base has been losing confidence in him over a number of issues and a major push in Afghanistan with negative results could cost him his re-election bid.

This episode of ambivalence reveals the weakness of Obama’s foreign policy, which is elementary at best, and directionless at its worst. The very public way the White House has conducted this “careful policy review” has emboldened our enemies and caused our allies great consternation.  Worst, it has weakened the leadership of Gen. McChrystal, whom White House wags are now calling  ‘MacArthur’ in reference to the great General sacked by President Harry Truman.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, Pakistan Foreign Minister Makdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi spoke plainly about the impact of a U. S. withdrawal before the Taliban is defeated.  “This will be disastrous,” he said. “You will lose credibility…..who is going to trust you again?”   He added, “If you go in, why are you going out without getting the job done?  Why did you send so many billions of dollars and lose so many lives? And why did we ally with you?” With the Pakistan army waging a bloody battle with the Taliban, the Foreign Minister’s distress is understandable.   Sir David Richards, the head of the British army warned on Sunday, a Taliban victory would have an “intoxicating effect” on extremist Islam around the world.

One wonders if this very public struggle between Gates, McChrystal and Obama is just a subterfuge for something bigger, or is the President and his staff really this unprepared and until the McChrystal report leak, seemingly unconcerned?   It is clear from the events and comments of the past two weeks, that Obama has given Afghanistan scant attention, and his communications with McChrystal almost non-existent since the General took command in June.  The President has been described by his staff as a micro-manager and a stickler for details.  His mastery of modern technology is well documented.  Therefore it seems oddly curious he and McChrystal, his chosen point-person, have been out of direct contact for so long. Lincoln, for whom Obama professes admiration, spent hours each day at the telegraph office in constant communication with his field commanders, to the point of directing troop movement himself.  Why was Obama so detached from the war effort these past crucial months?

My heart and history tell me it is time to abandon Afghanistan, that this is an unwinnable war.  Although after reading the synopsis of the McChrystal report, the situation seems dire, and additional troops necessary to advance his agenda.  Comparisons to Vietnam aside, the geo-political fall-out from allowing the Taliban and al Qaeda to succeed, and perhaps acquire nuclear technology, is beyond the consequences of the “peace with honor” in Vietnam.  Obama does have a tough choice, one that could have been avoided if he did not use Afghanistan as an election ploy.  Now is the time for him to focus and just shut up.  Can a day pass without him standing in front of a microphone at least 3 times a day?  It’s time to stop telegraphing his inexperience and strategy to the world. It is time to stop making McChrystal the scapegoat.  We now need a decision from our Commander and Chief.  Finally, he must begin to create a foreign policy that suggests peace and openness, but leaves no room to question our commitment to force in the face of danger and tyranny.

This is not about being gleeful that he failed.  Nor will this have a devastating effect on his presidency; it is just another example of the much bigger problem that looms within the White House and the hubris of POTUS himself.  This is about a man with an uncontrollable ego who continuously trades on his ‘cult of personality’, when humility and true leadership qualities are required.

The White House can back pedal all they want on this thing, but team Obama basically tried to whip the IOC into submission even before his plane touched down in Copenhagen.  Once he announced he was going to personality pitch the IOC on behalf of Chicago, a first for any U.S. President, he made it more about himself and not America.  For months the White House has been talking about the Olympics being a ‘tribute and capstone’ to the President’s second term. You had better believe the IOC heard the arrogance in those remarks. His decision to ‘suck up’ to the IOC forced Japan’s PM and his Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to hop on their big birds and head to Denmark to defend their cities chances.

With Michelle in tow and half of the cabinet, including Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, POTUS delivered another impassioned ‘do or die’ speech full of that flowery talk and feel good phoniness best saved for an awards dinner.  Unfortunately, even his gifted oratory skills and uber-charisma could not obscure the lingering vision of that horrific video from earlier this week, the brutal beating death of Chicago honor student Albert Derrion.

For those of us fond of juxtaposition, it is discouraging when our President feels it necessary to make uninformed remarks about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates, but remains silent about the death of Albert in his so-called adopted city of Chicago.  On Wednesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the video was “chilling..”  This is not just a Chicago-specific problem,” Gibbs said. “Obviously, youth crime and gang violence are something that this administration takes seriously. And we’ll have more on that soon.”    Well, Mr. President, I’m still waiting.  I assume because POTUS is friends with Professor Gates, he felt at ease to comment, but with Albert Derrion, the loss of a bright young man is just another unfortunate statistic of inner city reality.

As for the residents of Chicago, they expressed more disappointment at losing the Olympics and complaining about the IOC, then demanding answers and action from their city government, police department and school system.  Chicago does not deserve the Olympics.  It has always been a beacon of corruption, hypocrisy and social injustice. A swift kick in the rear from its favorite son would be more appropriate.

Considering our current problems as a nation, to utilize POUTS for an Olympic bid seems to me like a cheap bit of theatrics, beneath the dignity of his office.  Perhaps this will be learning experience for him, a lesson in humility and humanity.  It is interesting to note that immediately after his presentation, POUTS jumped the limo back to the confines to Air Force One. Surely leaving the IOC meeting before the first round of voting was completed sent a strong message to the voting members – “you have seen me in all my greatness, give thanks, now I’m out of here Jack!”

On a more positive note once on Air Force One, POUTS granted General McChrystal 25 minutes of his precious time to discuss that ‘little skirmish’ known as the Afghanistan War.  It was the first time they spoke ‘one on one’ in 70 days.  Perhaps it is time for POTUS to give the pilots of Air Force One a week off and spend a little quality time at the White House.  I am sure we can do without the town halls for one week.

David Letterman:  Is It Over For This Tired Old Man?

Ask anyone who has had the opportunity to be backstage at Late Night With David Letterman, and they will tell you the TV funnyman is one unfunny, sad gentleman.  Visitors and guests are told to stay in their dressing rooms and stay out of Mr. Letterman’s site lines.  When he is walking the halls, minions scurry in front of him to make sure no one is in their master’s path.  He rarely visits guests before the show unlike the gregarious Leno and O’Brian and is often sullen and pensive between breaks.  I am not a qualified analyst, but to me this is not exactly the behavior of a man who should be enjoying his role as ‘king of late night’ television.  Given his sometimes mean spirited sense of humor, it comes as no surprise that a disturbing scenario has been developing behind the scenes.

What happened to Letterman this week is despicable, unlawful and obviously very painful and embarrassing for someone who has worked so diligently to keep his private life hidden from public view.  Although Mr. Letterman is the victim, a larger question of impropriety looms, namely did he sexually harass female employees of his program?  He obliquely referenced other affairs in his monologue, so potentially, this may be just the beginning Mr. Letterman’s problems.  Last night on his program, Mr. Letterman just seemed to be a tired old man, drained of quick wit and malevolent bravado.

As we are all aware, sexual harassment is illegal.  It is debilitating for the victims and once exposed, painful for the loved ones of the accused. No word how this has affected Mr. Letterman’s wife (and companion for 20 years) and his child.  Also, no word on how CBS will deal with Mr. Letterman if he has breached the legal boundaries of this employment contract.  One thing is guaranteed, there is someone now working late nights in the CBS legal department to determine if they will be liable for any potential suits that come Mr. Letterman’s way.  In Mr. Letterman’s defense, these affairs may have been consensual, therefore morally wrong, but not illegal. Considering the amount of this nonsense that occurs in Washington, is it any wonder this country has lost its moral compass?   I hope that there is a lesson to be learned somewhere in this story and that somebody will think twice before engaging in such an affair, whether illegal or consensual.

With more Americans watching Fox, you’d think POTUS on his media blitzkrieg would welcome the opportunity to present his case to the Fox audience, but no.  This Sunday Obama gave an ‘exclusive’ to every morning show (CNN’s State Of The Union, Face The Nation, This Week,) including Al Punto at Univision.  Interestingly, Univision did not request an interview, although I applaud POTUS for reaching out to the Hispanic community. The only media outlet that has repeatedly requested an interview with POTUS and has not received one post-inauguration is Fox News.

Asked for a reason, White House, as usual had a coherent, reasonable answer:  “We figured Fox would rather show ‘So You Think You Can Dance’ than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform,” a White House deputy press secretary told ABC News on Saturday. “Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again; not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon.”  Now am I wrong, doesn’t this sound like political payback?

Since taking office POTUS has given a staggering 127 interviews in comparison to the 41 given by Bush and 46 by Clinton in the same 9 month period.  I wonder, if POTUS was more coherent in his policy positions initially would he have to give so many interviews to explain himself?   Leaving that thought aside, this is the President who declared his administration was about transparency.  He suggests he is all about bi-partisanship and that his door is always open.  More recently, he has told Americans to ‘call out’ his detractors.  Of course, Americans will have to ‘call out’ his critics because POTUS seems to unwilling to do it himself.  I’m not suggesting POTUS spend an intimate hour with Glenn Beck or hoist a brewski with Hannity, although Fox News Sunday should be on the agenda.  Chris Wallace, a thoughtful, respectful and articulate journalist and the former moderator of Meet The Press, hosts FNS..  Candidate Obama previously appeared on the show and the interview was cordial, so what is the problem?

The answer is simple; The White House cannot control the dialogue at Fox.  They cannot request the questions in advance, and he will not be thrown ‘softballs’ like he will on the other programs.  It is that simple.  Once again, the President’s actions fail to match his rhetoric.  Where is the transparency?  Where is that famous ‘open door policy’? If he truly believes he is the President of all people, and not just those who agree with him agenda then ‘man up’ and head over to Fox.  However, maybe a truthful exchange with his critics is too much to expect from this President.  It’s much easier to be the only man on the podium with the microphone controlling the dialogue.  Of course, it is equally effective to have the President’s sycophants at various news outlets and blogs, just dismiss all Fox viewers as ‘white racists’ and ‘idiots’.  So much for an honest and open exchange of ideas with POTUS.

On a more positive note, Bertha Lewis the CEO of ACORN, faced the group’s biggest critic Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace this week.  Unlike the President, right or wrong, Ms. Lewis had the guts to face down her critics.