Presidential Popularity

President Barrack Obama has reached a new low in popularity with the American people, according to an ABC News/Washington Post survey taken in early July. In the poll, 60% of voters polled expressed a lack of faith that the President was making the correct decisions for the nation. Voters voiced disapproval of the Obama agenda on nearly every issue put to them by the poll.

They disapproved of Mr Obama’s handling of the economy by a 54-43% margin. Similar numbers were true for Mr. Obama’s handling of Health Care (50-54%), the budget deficit (56-40%), and financial regulatory reform (50-44%). Only in one area did the voters polled support the president’s actions by a majority. They approved of his handling of the President’s position as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces by a margin of 55-44%, apparently in response to his firing General McCrystal, the former commander of forces in Afghanistan.

President Obama’s overall popularity has dropped to 50% of voter approval, which reflects a continuing decline since his popularity peaked in April, 2009, several months after his inauguration. His approval at that time was a stratospheric 69%, but has fallen every month since that time.

Mr Obama’s popularity remains considerably higher than his predecessor in the White House at the end of his second term. George Bush was hovering in the 30% approval level when he left office. But there is a remarkable difference in the approval ratings for the two presidents. President Bush finished his second term at the 30% approval level after nearly eight years of unrelenting criticism from a merciless adversarial press. Mr Obama, on the other hand, has fallen to his current level of popularity despite the shameless, adoring coverage of the mainstream media since arriving at the White House.

After a short respite following the terror attack of September 11, 2001, the media returned to the incessant drumbeat of criticism of Mr. Bush on his Iraq policy, attempted reform of Social Security, tax cuts for the “wealthy,” and even included fraudulent attacks on Mr Bush’s National Guard service by CBS anchor Dan Rather just prior to the 2004 Presidential Election. Coverage of the war in Iraq included regular mention of the number of Americans killed and injured in an effort to diminish popular support. Their attacks on Mr Bush included continued references to a faltering economy during the entire Bush presidency, despite the fact that the nation enjoyed an economic boom for much of Bush’s terms, including the addition of 2.7 million jobs directly attributed to the Bush tax cuts.

News conferences with Mr Bush featured barbed questions from hostile reporters. ABC News “reporter” Terry Moran has said of the White House Press Room, “In that room, one of the things a questioner has to do is create a moment, a confrontation with the President,” Moran explained. “The point is to get them to answer questions, not just stand up there and use all the majesty of the Presidency to amplify his image.”

And yet majesty was all many reporters could see when referring to Mr Obama. The same Terry Moran from ABC News, who favored confrontation with Mr Bush, gushed his adoration for the newly inaugurated President Obama, saying “Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office.” Evan Thomas, of soon-to-be bankrupt Newsweek, was similarly impressed, and said, “In a way, Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God." ABC News assumed a non-confrontational approach with respect to the new president, when reporter Bill Weir had the following comment on Mr Obama’s inauguration, "Never have so many people shivered so long with such joy. From above, even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity." I am sure they were awed, if not by the majesty of President Obama, then by the utter lack of integrity of the mainstream media.

George Bush endured two complete terms of constant adversarial press coverage, to which he refused to respond. He believed that responding to those shameless attacks was beneath the dignity of the office he held. Mr Obama, on the other hand, has enjoyed the fawning support of a corrupt media while instituting policies that expand government power while recklessly spending money he does not have. His popular support is falling with every move he makes. Even the desperate support from a derelict and incompetent media are not enough to prop up the failing second term of the Carter Administration. The question is: How long will Mr Obama's popularity remain at 50% approval if his dupes and toadies in the media actually begin to do their jobs?

Dirt as a Political Strategy

A news story appearing in the Washington Post on July 7 provides searing insight into the character of the Democrat Party. The story, written by staff reporter Philip Rucker appears under the headline, “Democrats digging harder than ever for dirt on Republicans.” The story goes on to indicate that democrat opposition researchers are moving faster and more aggressively to unearth unflattering details about the lives of their Republican opponents in the upcoming congressional elections. They are looking for issues such as unpaid taxes and connections to financial firms that have benefitted from government bailouts.

(See Mr Rucker’s story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070605271.html)

Leaving aside the obvious hypocrisy of Democrat operatives finding fault with tax cheats and politicians associated with bailed out financial firms (Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner, call your office), this story illustrates the lack of philosophical depth in the Democrat Party. Of course, opposition research is not a new phenomenon and both sides do it. But for a major Washington newspaper to run a story on the extent of the Democrat search for dirt illustrates that they cannot run on the issues.

A major political party seeking to gain the favor of the American electorate should be able to boldly proclaim its fundamental principles and defend them in debate. The articulation and defense of its principles should be the primary effort of a party to seek electoral approbation. And yet the Democrat party, apparently unwilling to proclaim its support for income redistribution and an increasing takeover of the private sector, seems to be focusing on finding dirt on their Republican opponents.

They cannot, at least with straight faces and supported by facts, claim that their economic recovery plan is working. Unemployment continues to hover at or near 10%. Housing demand continues to drop. Construction has come to a halt. The outlook for economic recovery is dim, unless you are employed in a government job and a member of the union. In the area of Homeland Security, Democrats are actively supporting open borders and amnesty to illegal aliens now in the country. After all, it’s unrealistic to try to deport 12 million people, unless they were potential Republican voters.

In foreign affairs, Iran continues to develop the nuclear weapon that will plunge the Middle East into war as sure as tomorrow’s sunrise, with no realistic response from the Democrat President or Congress. Instead, the Iranian leaders laugh at and ridicule the weak American President. Meanwhile, Mr Obama has castigated our Israeli allies for building settlements in their own country while providing aid and comfort to Hamas terrorists. On a more personal level, American voters may not approve of our President bowing and scraping before unfriendly dictators as a viable foreign policy. With a completely ineffective foreign policy failing as surely as their domestic policies, it is little wonder that Democrat opposition researchers are working overtime.

With a paucity of issues on which they can campaign, digging dirt on their opposition is the only effective strategy remaining to a truly bankrupt political party. That bankruptcy was evident in the eulogies for the late Senator Robert Byrd, where democrat luminaries like Bill Clinton attempted to make excuses for Senator Byrd’s long and intimate association with a violent, racist organization like the Ku Klux Klan. What they do not yet recognize is that they have gone too far for dirt on their opponents to suffice. They have lurched too far to the left for the American people to be impressed by the exposure of tax cheats and cozy financial arrangements. Their ideas are as bankrupt as their behavior has always been.

A New Sherrif in Town?

The upcoming congressional elections illustrate the wisdom of the founding fathers, the giants who wrote and ratified the Constitution of the United States in 1787-88. They were able to foresee the potential for abuse of power by the political factions that would exist in the future. They provided a vehicle for the people of the republic to assert their sovereignty over the government by establishing the terms of the senators and congressmen, in which the entire House of Representative and one third of the Senate will have to stand for election every two years. In their wisdom, the Founders established a system that would never go more than two years without an opportunity for the people to make substantial changes to the political class.

This year, the prospect for significant change is looming over the political class in Washington D.C. One of the most significant aspects of the prospective conservative ascendancy in this fall’s mid-term elections is that with a Republican majority in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, leadership of committees in those bodies will also be in Republican hands. The new committee chairmen would then have the power to set agendas and schedule hearings.

Congressional committees, chaired by Republicans, could then take it upon themselves to inquire into some of the murky issues and outright corruption the current Obama lap-dog congress condones. Congress is supposed to be, after all, a separate and distinct branch of the government with the function of legislating the nation’s business, with the secondary role of acting as a check on the power of the other branches. Instead, this highly partisan democrat majority congress acts as the president’s rubber stamp, approving sweeping legislation without ever reading it.

But what if there was a congress in session that actually performed its Constitutional function of writing laws, appropriating funds, and providing oversight of the other branches of government such as the burgeoning, unelected, federal administrative bureaucracy? Would such a congress have any interest in executive branch shakedowns of oil companies that put $20 billion in the president’s hands to disperse as he sees fit? Would it have any interest in the government’s ownership of automobile companies? Or would it have any interest in influencing the foreign policy of an administration whose chief executive bows in the presence of foreign dictators and who attempts to appease our enemies while chiding our closest allies?

With the politically motivated Obama Administration lurching from crisis to crisis and failing to govern effectively in the areas that are most crucial to the American people, like growing the economy instead of growing government unions, a curious adversarial congress could provide the check on further depredations of the nation’s economic health. Such a congress might actually read the legislation before they enact it. They might be really concerned with the crushing burden of debt their actions impose on future generations.

But the most important result of the potential new conservative majorities will be the exposure of the widespread corruption of this administration. With Republican chairmen in place in the House of Representative and the Senate, some committee might choose to get to the bottom of the White House’s clumsy attempt to get Congressman Joe Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvania senatorial race against the hapless Arlan Spectre. Though that action is a felony, but has been overlooked by any of the congressional “watchdogs.” Like the derelict and negligent mainstream media, the current congress has chosen to look the other way rather than inquire into the seedier side of the Obama Administration. We can only imagine the enthusiasm with which the current congress would be investigating these issues if the George Bush White House was responsible. After the November elections, there may be a new Sherriff in town, if they have the intestinal fortitude to do their jobs.

Dereliction of Duty

A recent statement by ABC News reporter and host George Stephanopoulos illustrates in a sentence the extent of liberal bias in the American media. Mr Stephanopoulos was interviewing James O’Keefe, the independent filmmaker who exposed the corruption of the ACORN organization in 2009. During the course of the June 1st interview, Mr Stephanopoulos, apparently with a straight face, said to Mr O’Keefe, “Some of your critics say that you’re more of a political activist than a journalist.”

(http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/nq/2010/20100611043920.aspx)

The incident is reported in the “Notable Quotables” section of the Media Research Center’s website in a segment titled “Pot, Meet Kettle,” is laughable on its face. Mr Stephanopoulos, who now poses as a “journalist” as the ABC network’s Chief Political Correspondent, was the Senior Political Advisor to the Clinton campaign in 1992 and later became the chief spokesman for the Clinton Administration. Mr Stephanopoulos made a seamless move from the Clinton White House to become a political “journalist” at ABC. No one thought to inquire whether Mr Stephanopoulos’ obvious political biases would be a factor in his performance as a “journalist” at the time.

The reason, of course, is that a liberal political bias is the norm in the American media. It is what is expected. No one refers to Mr Stephanopoulos as “Liberal political correspondent George Stephanopoulos. It’s just George Stephanopoulos. In an article on him in Wikipedia, he is described as ”an American television journalist and a former political advisor.” The fact that he is a liberal is not mentioned. It’s just normal. Everyone with a brain is liberal, right?

Interestingly, a similar Wikipedia article on James O’Keefe describes him as “an American conservative activist videographer.” Conservatives always require the modifier so that we all know they are not quite right. The American media is hopelessly biased and totally unable to perform its constitutionally protected function of informing the American people, and keeping the government honest by exposing malfeasance. Their view, of course, is that no malfeasance could be happening in a democrat administration. Only those awful republican felons, who seek to starve old people and deny medical care for the poor require the scrutiny of the “watchdog” press to keep them honest.

Because they are so ideologically identical to the current political administration in Washington, they see no evil in a government that nationalizes the automobile industry, takes over equity positions in financial institutions, grabs control of the entire health care industry, shuts down deep water oil production in response to one accident, and threatens to add crushing tax burdens on job-producing industries in the middle of a deep recession. Not one of them is asking, “Where is the constitutional authority for the president to do this?” They all just assume that Mr Obama is a liberal democrat, he must mean well. How could he do anything wrong?

The problem is that once a government begins to disregard the restraints placed upon it by its constitution, it becomes a law unto itself. There are no restrictions on its actions and it can exert its power where ever it desires. It may now be a benign oppression, a soft tyranny, but it will not always be so if there is no respect for the rule of law. History overflows with examples of governments that have behaved badly when unrestrained by the rule of law. It’s time for the bankrupt, derelict, lapdog media to realize that if the Obama Administration can ignore the U.S. Constitution with regard to the powers entrusted to the Executive Branch by the document, it can also ignore the Amendments to that Constitution, especially the First Amendment.

Tea Party Violence

As the Obama Administration continues to ram its far-left agenda through a rubber-stamp congress, many thousands of patriotic Americans have banded together in a loosely organized group that has become known as the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement has continued to grow in an increasingly vocal way. Thousands of concerned Americans, many who have never been politically active are responding to left wing excesses in Washington by joining the Tea Party movement in their local areas.

The Obama Administration, and others on the radical left, have responded to the Tea Party movement in the same way they react to any true conservative movement. They have attacked and denigrated the Tea Party movement; they have attempted to marginalize the Tea Party members as right wing crazies, racists, and bigots; even President Obama himself has used the profane term “Tea Baggers” in public reference Tea Party members.

This kind of response from the radical left is not unusual. Those on the left never argue the merits of their ideas and philosophy; they know they can never win in the arena of ideas, and they never try. Instead they attempt to marginalize their opposition as bumbling (Eisenhower, Ford, George H.W. Bush) or evil (Nixon) or just plain stupid (Reagan, George W. Bush). They have suggested that the Tea Party movement is consumed with anti-government rage that is sure to manifest itself in violence and lawless destruction.

The American media, shamelessly carrying the water for the unqualified President they installed in the White House, have missed the point of the Tea Party movement entirely. The Tea Party is not an anti-government movement, it is an anti-illegitimate government movement. Any government that governs against the will of the people and contrary to the form and structure of the U.S. Constitution can only be regarded as illegitimate.

The American people have watched patiently for the last 80 years as the elected officials in Washington have taken tiny steps away from the U.S. Constitution, beginning with the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930’s. But, like a frog being cooked slowly in warm water, we have acquiesced to the slowly increasing heat. Suddenly, the Obama Administration has begun turning up the heat at a frightening pace and the water is beginning to boil.

But during those 80 years of straying from the Constitution, no previous administration or congress has completely disregarded the document. The Obama Administration and the Reid-Pelosi Congress have done just that. The important question then becomes, “If they do not recognize the restraints placed on government by the Constitution, what limits to their power do they recognize?” If there is no restraint on the powers of the government, we are no longer a government of laws.

Every politician in Washington, DC has taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. The righteous anger of Americans manifested by the Tea Party movement is a direct result of those politicians ignoring their oaths and operating outside the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. To trivialize the Tea Party movement is to ignore the facts. The American people will not long tolerate the politicians who have broken faith with generations of Americans who have preserved and defended the Constitution. The Tea Party movement may result in violence of a sort. But the violence the American people will inflict will occur at the ballot box, not in the streets.

GOING OUT OF BUSINESS

The Obama Administration’s Federal Trade Commission is considering potential policy changes that would attempt to “re-invent Journalism,” according to a recently released staff discussion draft memorandum. The idea comes amid on-going headlines concerning the demise of the legacy news industry, with the New York Times forced to lay off reporters, and former industry giants like Newsweek losing millions of dollars each year.

Naturally, the FTC’s proposed solutions are government-based. The memo proposes to grant an anti-trust exemption to publishers, allowing them to collude on prices. So the government solution to a failing business is to sanction monopolies and to raise the price of the product that consumers are refusing to purchase at the current price. Brilliant!

Another idea presented in the FTC memo proposes a tax exemption for media organizations. That sounds like a great idea. Who, save democrats, could possibly be against tax exemptions? But who would get the tax exemptions? Would Fox News qualify? Would The Drudge Report qualify? Both of those news organizations are in great financial shape already, and do not need subsidies. But would they get them if they did need them. Given the level of hostility of the Obama Administration towards conservative media, one might question if some priority would be given to politically correct media outlets in a plan to provide tax exemptions.

Yet another idea proposed by the FTC memo includes actually providing government funding for news outfits, tax credits for hiring reporters, and subsidies of postal rates for publishers. Why don’t we just nationalize the news industry, they already act like paid government stenographers who happily regurgitate every syllable uttered by the Obama Administration without so much as a question.

Why is the government solution always to subsidize failing industries. If there was a market for unsubsidized solar energy, people would buy it because it makes sense. If there was a market for unsubsidized ethanol fuel, the people would readily buy it. If there was a market for left-wing, pro-Obama opinion disguised as news, people would buy it without a government subsidy.

The fact is there is nothing wrong with the news market. The consumers of news are smart enough to know when they are receiving an inferior product and they have voted with their feet. The New York Times and Newsweek and all the other legacy media outlets are failing because they have failed to recognize the salient fact of all business: the customer is always right. They have arrogantly refused to listen to their customers and continued to publish biased opinions disguised as news. They continue to withhold the reportage of events that do not further their agenda. That is certainly their right. They can continue to follow their business plans all the way to bankruptcy. But they have no claim to assistance from the public treasury.

Here’s a thought for failing media giants. Why not actually report the news? Why not send aggressive reporters to the White House (pretend there is a Bush working there), to ask the president why he has refused to act against the Iranian nuclear program, and why he has reneged on a U.S. agreement to install missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland? Maybe they could ask a question about the attempted bribery of Congressman Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvanian senate race while they were there. They could even pretend they were in favor of enforcing the law and inquire about the failure of the Obama Administration to control the southern border. What about the unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities? Is there any curiosity in the media about those issues?

The press has always acted as a check on the ever-expanding reach of the federal government, serving to shine the disinfecting light of day on the shady sides of the government. That is they did until the arrival of the Obama Administration. Now they are content to bask in the reflected glow from Mr Obama and simply cannot bring themselves to criticize him, let alone report the facts. You have to wonder if there will be any “journalists” left when the next republican administration is elected and they will be able to go back to work.

He'll never dance with another

Well, we have gone and done it now. We have incurred the wrath of the well-known political commentator and international affairs expert, Sir Paul McCartney who is slightly put out by growing opposition to President Obama in the United States.

McCartney, the former member of the Beatles and song-writer of some renown has come out in support of the American President while admonishing his opponents. “I’m a big fan. So lay off him, he’s doing great,” said McCartney. He did not elaborate on just what program of the president’s was doing so well.

It could not have been the colossal foreign policy failure to bring the Iranian nuclear program to a halt, or the Obama Administration’s program for ensuring restraint on the part of North Korea, surely. It was not his weak-kneed support of our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

It probably was not the president’s response to the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, since there has not been one, yet. Perhaps Mr McCartney was referring to the nationalization of several car companies, or the trillion dollar slush fund appropriated to “save the economy.” Maybe it was the coming Cap and Trade legislation, that will surely hobble the private sector with staggering taxes and skyrocketing expenses.

It probably was not the Obama Administration’s anemic response to the growing invasion of the southern border by illegal aliens flocking into the United States. No, that’s not going all that well, with states like Arizona required to enforce federal law at the border because the Obama Administration will not.

Just what has the president undertaken that is going well? Mr McCartney, do you want to know a secret? Do you promise not to tell? He has done nothing to improve the economy, the border crisis, or any of several international crises. He has demonstrably weakened the nation by withdrawing proposed missile defense systems from the Eastern Europeans, and by telling the world the circumstances in which he would use nuclear weapons, and in which he would not. He has bowed to our adversaries and scolded our allies. He is exactly the kind of politician that European know-nothings applauded prior to the Second World War, the grand appeasers.

Here’s a little advice for Sir Paul: Stay in your lane, try sticking with something you know about. You write silly little love songs, and leave the commentary on American politics to those of us enduring the Obama presidency.