Wake Me Up When There's An Election...Oh, Wait...

Hello to any "readers" of Bragging Writes who may still be out there. My sincere apologies for the complete and total lack of blogging for the last, well, let's not quantify it...let's just say it's been awhile!

So where have I been? Well...in a nutshell, it's really quite simple: when push comes to shove, this is a hobby and not a job, and so my job and any job-related activities must come first. But that's only part of the story. I must also admit that I seem to have misplaced my "muse". Or maybe I've realized that my muse only comes out during election years! Put differently, I find myself most inspired to write in the midst of the part of politics that I have always found most interesting -- the "horse race". Elections.

On that note, you may have heard there are a few elections today that have garnered some pretty significant national attention. In Virginia, the Gubernatorial Election has Republican Bob McDonnell facing off against Democrat Creigh Deeds. In New Jersey, incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine is up against Republican Chris Christie. And last but not least, in (way) upstate New York, near the Canadian Border, there is a race for the House of Representatives (New York 23) that now pits Conservative Party candidate -- note: not Republican Party candidate -- Doug Hoffman against Democrat Bill Owens. (The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out of the race this past weekend and subsequently endorsed the Democrat).

These three races, all quite different in many ways, also have several very interesting things in common:

• All three are states (or districts, in the case of NY-23) carried by President Obama just a year ago;
• All three are races in which President Obama and/or his White House have had significant involvement;
• All three races -- as of this writing at 6:15pm Tuesday evening -- will, in my opinion, likely be won by the Republican (or, in NY-23, Conservative) candidate.

Last year, Obama won Virginia by a margin of 53% to 46% of the vote over John McCain. The latest RealClearPolitics Average (an average of all recent polling, a.k.a. "RCP Average") has Republican McDonnell ahead of Democrat Deeds 54% to 41%. Last year, Obama won New Jersey by a margin of 57% to 42% of the vote over John McCain. The latest RCP Average has Republican Christie ahead of Democrat (and incumbent) Corzine 43% to 42%. Last year, Obama carried New York's 23rd Congressional District by a margin of 52% to 47% of the vote over John McCain. The latest poll for this race (there is no RCP Average) has Conservative Hoffman ahead of Democrat Owens 41% to 36%. The race in Virginia is a foregone conclusion -- McDonnell will win that one handily. The polls in New Jersey have fluctuated wildly over the last few weeks, and most consider this race to be extremely tight. I happen to believe, however, that Christie will win by 3 to 5 points tonight. As for NY-23, this race is just a gigantic mess. The original Republican candidate, Scozzafava, never enjoyed the backing of all national Republicans, and ultimately some notable GOP figures including Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty, and yes, Sarah Palin, threw their support behind Hoffman over Scozzafava. Either way, though, it looks as though Hoffman will win tonight, and while he may not be an official Republican, his victory would be a loss for the Democrats.

It's very important to note the involvement of the President and the White House in each of these races as well. Rather than try to analyze that myself, I'll leave it to a professional. John Fund of The Wall Street Journal summed it up nicely today when he wrote the following:

"It can't be said that President Obama hasn't gone all-out for Democratic candidates in the three marquee off-year elections that will be decided today.

In Virginia, Mr. Obama appeared twice for Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds. The visits only stopped a few weeks ago after Mr. Deeds began dropping in the polls, when unnamed White House aides then contributed to a front-page Washington Post story that effectively had Team Obama washing its hands of any responsibility for his likely loss.

In the wild upstate New York special election for a House seat, the White House has been deeply involved from the start. It effectively created the vacancy by enticing GOP incumbent John McHugh to become Secretary of the Army. It also helped recruit Democrat Bill Owens, a wealthy trial lawyer, and President Obama held a fundraiser in New York for him. Just yesterday the White House dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to the district to drive up turnout and lambaste Republicans as intolerant. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel also played an instrumental role over the weekend in convincing Dede Scozzafava, the now-withdrawn GOP nominee in the race, to endorse Mr. Owens rather than Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

But it's in New Jersey's governor's race that the White House footprint has been most visible and heavy. Last August, Team Obama was so worried that incumbent Governor Jon Corzine was trailing in the polls that it effectively ordered him to install top Obama political pollster Joel Benenson to mange strategy for the campaign. White House officials David Axelrod and Patrick Gaspard traveled to New Jersey to deliver the message in person to Mr. Corzine. Politico.com, citing three Corzine aides, reports that at one point the New Jersey governor even 'began to suspect that the White House was considering pushing him to step aside for another candidate -- a tactic the White House unsuccessfully tried against another northeastern Democrat in similar trouble -- New York Gov. David Paterson.'

That didn't happen, but with Mr. Benenson installed in the campaign, the White House jumped into the race with both feet. President Obama has been to New Jersey three times to rally Democrats. Sunday's visit lasted an entire day, a sharp contrast to the in-and-out stump campaigning most presidents do on behalf of candidates.

The fact is, President Obama has poured a lot more time and energy into these races than incumbent presidents usually do. At least some of his prestige and clout are on the line tonight along with the fate of his party's nominees."

And so the narrative is apparently written, right? Any Republican win tonight is a sign of trouble for Obama and the Democrats, and a Republican sweep would be a (politically) seismic event signaling a direct repudiation of Obama and the Democrats and the potential beginning of a Republican comeback, right? Well, maybe. You see, this is where I differ with many other Republicans and even with the way the headlines have already begun to be crafted by the media. Because again, as I write, I think we are looking at a Republican sweep tonight -- (assuming Hoffman is a de facto Republican in NY-23). And while I think this is certainly significant and while it would have been thought improbable six months ago and impossible twelve months ago, I don't believe the GOP should pop the champagne just yet.

In short, I think this is likely more of a rejection of Obama and Congressional Democrats than it is a sign of renewed confidence in or newfound affection for Republicans. Should my prediction hold true, I do think Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ought to be concerned. I do not, however, think that Republicans should begin licking their chops and dreaming of regaining majorities in the House and Senate next year on the way to taking back the White House in 2012.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid should be worried because of the real concerns that many of the same independent voters who put Obama in the White House now have about him and his Capital Hill cohorts -- the same independents who will likely tip these three elections away from Democrats tonight. Obama needs them to pass healthcare, and he needs them for electoral purposes both in the midterm elections next year and his own reelection in 2012. So while this should be something that raises the stress level in the West Wing, let's not go overboard. Three elections in an off-year do not signify a catastrophe for Obama and his party by any means, but they do likely signify the need to recalibrate a bit in order to prevent further political erosion.

As for the GOP, the Republican "brand" is so very damaged -- rightfully so, some might argue, (this writer being one of them, at least on certain issues) -- that three elections in an off-year will be only the first step in a long process of recovery and rebuilding. Would a "sweep" tonight be a feather in the GOP's cap? Sure. Would it energize a Republican base still licking their (largely self-inflicted) wounds from 2008? You bet. But if Republicans try to make too much out of what happens tonight, they risk returning immediately to the cocky and tone-deaf politics that brought the party to its knees a year ago. So as a Republican, my advice to the GOP tonight is the same advice a good football coach gives his players about how to behave after scoring a touchdown. Do you spike the ball and start dancing around like a maniac? Absolutely not. You calmly hand the referee the ball, return to the field, and get back to work. "Act like you've been there before", the coach says. Bingo. Republicans tonight should "act like [they've] been there before". If they do, perhaps it will indeed be the first of many steps required to actually get them back there again.

A 'Healthy' Debate

Tonight, President Obama will hold his fourth primetime press conference since taking office in January. Obama's primary topic for tonight will be the hotly debated issue of health care reform. With polls showing the public's approval of Obama's handling of the health care issue slipping, he undoubtedly realizes that his chances of signing meaningful reform into law are diminishing daily.

The House revealed its version of a health care reform bill last week, and the bill's unveiling was met with almost instantaneous controversy. Obama did not seem worried, though, and forcefully reiterated his intention of passing a health care reform bill before Congress' August recess, telling reporters:

"We are going to get this done...Don't bet against us...We are going to make this happen."

I don't know anyone who would argue that the country's current health care system is good. Indeed, there are unquestionably problems with the status quo, not the least of which being the number of uninsured Americans. So the debate, it seems to me, does not hinge on the issue of whether or not improvement is needed, but rather on how that improvement should be made.

The sweeping changes proposed by the House (and supported by Obama) would, according to the Associated Press:

"...require everyone to have health insurance and make employers provide it or pay a penalty; subsidize the poor to help them buy care; and create a new public insurance plan modeled after Medicare to compete with private insurance companies."

While the merits of these proposed changes are debatable, what is not debatable is that health care comprises one-sixth of our entire economy, and that changes like those in the current House bill will literally affect every single American. Making any fundamental change to a system that holds such economic significance and that will be felt by every person is no small task. Making the sorts of changes that Obama is asking for will be an extraordinarily complex task. The logistics of implementing such a change are not only maddeningly complicated, they are also very expensive.

The president was dealt a blow last week when the head of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, testified before the Senate Budget Committee. From The Washington Post:

Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -- of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.

By no means do I pretend to be an expert on health care or health care reform. Further, I would in no way classify myself as one who is diametrically opposed to making necessary changes to a system that is not working properly. That said, there are a few areas where I differ with the President and with the Democrats in Congress. The following is a sample of some of the questions and areas of concern I have:

1. Why is President Obama in such a hurry to "get this done" before Congress' August recess? It seems to me that if such significant changes are going to be made to such a vital aspect of our country and her people, they should be done with extreme caution and only after careful deliberation. Rarely (if ever) is there an effective "quick fix" to a big problem, and I see no reason why this is an exception. Obama's arbitrary deadline seems based more on politics than on ensuring that whatever reform he signs into law has been thoroughly evaluated and considered -- not only by the members of Congress who will vote on it, but by the American people who will be affected by it.
2. When has the government ever really "fixed" anything? Does the government truly "run" anything well? Many opponents of the current proposal use the DMV as an example of what we can expect out of government-run health care, and while I think that's an extreme comparison, the underlying point has some validity. Do we want to entrust our health care to the federal government? Think about that for a bit, and I suspect you might have some concerns.
3. Is raising taxes and spending -- undeniably required for this to be enacted -- the wisest course of action given the fact that we are already in a recession and already facing the largest deficits in U.S. history? It's not just Republicans who express concerns about the fiscal implications of the current proposal, but also the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats", a group of roughly 50 Democrats in the House of Representatives who pride themselves on their fiscal conservatism. Even some Democratic Governors have expressed concerns, with Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen referring to the House bill as "the mother of all unfunded mandates".

Yesterday, President Obama accused those who oppose his health care reform proposal of playing politics. While that may be true, it seems to me that it is Obama himself who is playing politics, and he is doing so with an issue that is too serious and far-reaching for the "same old Washington politics" that Candidate Obama promised to end. The president realizes that his political capital is diminishing, and with it, the political "window" for pushing the kind of reform he wants through Congress is slowly closing. And while I agree reform of some kind is needed, I do not necessarily agree that the current proposal is the right answer, and I vehemently disagree with the politically-calculated rush that President Obama has placed on the reform process.

I think it would be beneficial for every American to tune in to the president's press conference tonight (8:00pm Eastern). If the press are appropriately inquisitive -- not always the case when they question Obama -- we could all learn a lot about what may be in store for us in the near future, and how, precisely, it will all be paid for.

Robert Gibbs (and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week)

It hasn't been the best week for Robert Gibbs, President Obama's Press Secretary.

On Monday, he told NBC News' Chuck Todd that we should "begin to judge [Obama's stimulus package] now". Take a look:



Fair enough, Mr. Gibbs. With this morning's news that 467,000 jobs were lost in June and that the unemployment rate has climbed to a 26-year high of 9.5%, I don't think many people will judge the Obama stimulus plan to have been successful thus far.

Yesterday wasn't a very good day for Gibbs, either. When the White House Press Corps realized that Obama's "online town hall" about health care yesterday didn't represent as much "change" as Candidate Obama promised to deliver, things got a little testy during Gibbs' daily briefing. You see, the questioners at yesterday's town hall were hand-picked (and their questions were pre-screened) by the White House -- something that sometimes occurred for President Bush's town hall meetings, but for which Bush was routinely excoriated by the Democrats and the media alike. To my great shock, CBS News' Chip Reid called Obama and his team out on their hypocrisy, eventually aided by the always cantankerous Helen Thomas. I give a lot of credit to Reid and Thomas for doing something that the mainstream media have largely failed to do thus far: actually challenging the Obama Administration on what is now a series of hedges, broken promises, and examples of the "same old Washington politics" against which Obama so frequently railed on the campaign trail last year. Here's yesterday's exchange between Gibbs, Reid and Thomas:



So again, it's been a hard week for Robert Gibbs, and amid increasing signs that President Obama's proverbial honeymoon -- with the American people and with the mainstream media -- might be nearing its end, perhaps Gibbs should prepare for more tough weeks to come.

---

Note: Commenter "craig" indicated that he was waiting for me to weigh in on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and his utterly disgraceful and increasingly bizarre behavior. I intend to do so in the near future, but quite frankly, I don't think we've seen the end of this story yet. Whether there will be additional revelations from Mr. Sanford (let's all hope not) or whether he ends up resigning in the coming days (I hope so), we haven't reached the conclusion yet. Once we do, I'll happily share my thoughts. Thanks for the comment, craig, and thanks to all for reading.

The Bragging Writes "Skinny"

Welcome to those who are visiting for the first time after reading "The Political Skinny" in this morning's Mobile Press-Register. I am flattered by the mention (though I was completely unaware it was coming)!

Had I known there might be a spike in "traffic", I would probably have put up a new post since, as it stands now, my most recent post was on May 12th! The recent dearth of updates is certainly not for a lack of compelling subject matter, and in fact, there is much to discuss, particularly as President Obama and the Democratic Congress continue to enact and propose significant changes. Quite frankly, work has kept me unusually busy over the last few months and, at the end of the day, my job comes first and this, my hobby, often suffers as a result. As we enter the summer months, though, work tends to quiet down a bit and so hopefully I'll be able to start writing more frequently, and I do hope you'll check back here from time to time.

Ironically, I had already planned to weigh in on a few Alabama-related topics in the coming weeks and months, including the fascinating position in which Senator Jeff Sessions now finds himself as the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is notable not only because of the upcoming confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor, but also because of the uniquely personal perspective that Senator Sessions has after his own experience in front of this same committee in 1986. On another note, I am very intrigued by Alabama's upcoming gubernatorial election, likely pitting Bradley Byrne against Artur Davis. I'm not sure I can recall an election in my lifetime in which Alabama has had two candidates for governor as intelligent and qualified as Byrne and Davis. Lastly, the recent economic and business developments in Mobile (as well as in Baldwin County) are very exciting, and the prospects for continued growth in the future seem very strong. I hope to take a closer look at that in the near future.

Below you'll find some previous posts, and while they may not be as timely today as when I initially wrote them, I hope you might find them interesting or thought-provoking nonetheless. Thanks for visiting the blog, and I do hope you'll come back again for more current (and hopefully more frequently updated) posts.

The Republican Party: An "Endangered Species"?

There’s no question that it’s a tough time to be a Republican. Look no further than the cover of this week’s Time Magazine (left), which features the trademark Republican elephant below the ominous descriptor: “Endangered Species”. So let's take stock of where things stand. Democrats control the White House, the House and the Senate, and if recent polls are accurate, the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans too. Arlen Specter’s defection and Al Franken’s inevitable “victory” in Minnesota will give Senate Democrats a coveted, filibuster-proof 60 seat-majority in the Senate. House Republicans are led ineffectively and are in no position to mount a credible challenge to any legislation that President Obama or the Democratic majority wish to see passed. New RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been a colossal disappointment, and now borders on earning “national joke” status. Any fair-minded person would admit that the media are in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, only furthering the inability of Republicans to mount any sort of quasi-effective counteroffensive. But “other than that, Mrs. Lincoln”, how do things look for the GOP?

It’s indeed hard to deny that the Republican Party is facing something of a nadir right now – certainly for my generation. We grew up during the “Reagan Revolution”, saw the Democrats briefly resurge when Bill Clinton was elected, but then witnessed the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 in which the Republicans gained control of the House and the Senate – the former for the first time in four decades. And there were heady times initially in the George W. Bush years, too, particularly when, very briefly, it was the Republican Party who controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. But shortly after Bush was reelected in 2004, things began to go very badly very quickly for the GOP. President Bush squandered considerable goodwill from the electorate and enormous political capital, most notably in the mishandling of the first years of the Iraq War, as well as with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The severity of the GOP’s dire straits began to be confirmed in the 2006 midterm elections, and the situation only worsened for the party as it stumbled into the 2008 elections. John McCain never had a chance in November (and really, no Republican candidate would have), and the Democrats built upon the legislative majorities they already held. So what now for the Republican Party? Are Republicans, in fact, an “endangered species”?

The irony for the GOP is that this daunting low point could, in fact, be a great opportunity. Americans have not seen a government this liberal in recent history. Between Obama – who as president is belying his “most liberal Senator” rating – Harry Reid and his soon-to-be unchecked Senate, and last but not least, Nancy Pelosi, we as a country are dealing with individuals in the key positions of power who are arguably further to the political left than any in history. With no legislative or popular leverage for Republicans, Obama’s agenda will sail through the House and the Senate, and in a matter of months, there could be some very significant changes in our country that will affect Americans in their day-to-day lives. As a Republican, I obviously believe that the majority of people will not be happy with everything that Obama has done, not to mention the more worrisome things he has yet to do. And it is here where opportunity may knock for the GOP. A popular backlash to Obama’s policies would give Republicans the chance to remind the voters who they are, what they stand for, and to present a stark contrast from what we are sure to see from the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress.

This is an opportunity that the GOP has not had since Ronald Reagan assumed office following President Carter’s disastrous single term. Unlike today, during the Clinton years, the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate for the majority of his two terms, and perhaps more importantly, Clinton often led from the center of the political spectrum. Clinton’s poll-driven and fickle “centrism” offered no true chance for a Republican contrast. The situation is different now. There is no such moderation in President Obama, and he’s too ambitious not to take advantage of having such decisive control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. But with great power comes great responsibility, and should the various items on the Obama agenda fail, there will be no one else for the Democratic Party to blame.

It’s not that simple, though. While perhaps optimistic Republicans would argue that Obama and his party now have “just enough rope to hang themselves”, the president is too smart to walk into such an obvious trap. No, Obama and the Democrats won’t implode on their own -- certainly not if the media can help it -- and to the extent they do fail and suffer for it politically, Republicans still have to present a cohesive and coherent alternative for those who may become disaffected with the Democrats. The Republican Party of May, 2009 is not a party capable of rising to this challenge. Ideological fault lines have created deep divisions within the GOP, a party that used to pride itself on its “big tent” philosophy, and on its ability to accept and embrace people of varying views – particularly with regard to social policy. Certain wings of the party still practice this, but others have become far more stringent about the litmus tests applied to those who seek to identify themselves as Republicans. This constricted and narrow-minded approach to party ideology is an impediment that must be dealt with before the GOP can rise again.

But who will take them there? As of now, there is no clear leader who can both begin the GOP’s recovery and serve as its face and voice. The person or persons who exhibit the ability to unite the currently divided party will likely earn Reagan-esque levels of admiration for achieving such a feat. I don’t know who this person is. I’m not sure any Republican really does. Perhaps it is someone who is young and only now beginning a political career. Or, perhaps it’s a more unlikely figure, maybe even someone who has been around for awhile. Either way, I tend to doubt the Republican Party will find this person in time to mount a credible challenge in 2012, but eventually, they will find him (or her). Because from adversity comes strength, and the ideals that Republicans of every ilk still commonly hold dear remain powerful, identifiable and appealing to many Americans – even if those who fail to lead The Grand Old Party now have temporarily lost sight of them.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com)

First Things First, Mr. President

Suppose I had my eye on a new house, a real “fixer-upper”. It’s a bigger house than I have now, and it’s more money than I want to spend, but I want it nonetheless. And maybe “fixer-upper” is too generous. There are leaks in the roof, the appliances are old and some are even broken, and the yard is overgrown. But I want this house, and I decide to pull out all the stops to make it mine, exhausting my savings and borrowing heavily. Then imagine that during the time between the acceptance of my offer and the closing, the leaks worsen until finally, right after we close, a full-fledged hole develops in the roof, allowing rain, cold air, debris and other undesirable things to enter the house through the hole, rendering it nearly uninhabitable. At this point, however, we are committed, this is our home, and so we proceed as planned and move in.

We have big plans for this house. We plan to add a new master bedroom to the back of the house, we want to put a pool in the back yard, and we also want to take the necessary steps to make the house “green”. Our first few weeks in the house, however, things aren’t going too well. The constant cold air rushing through the hole in the roof forces us to use the heat at all times, driving up our power and gas bills. The washer and dryer, already old and unreliable, finally kick the bucket, joining the refrigerator on the list of now defunct appliances. About a month after we move in, the area of the roof where the hole had been completely collapses, and now we have no roof over the dining room at all. Our new house is basically a living hell, and I find myself constantly reminding my wife that we didn’t cause the problems in the house. Did the previous owners really allow the house to fall into such a state of disrepair?

I promise my wife that we are, first and foremost, going to address the roof. It has to be done. We are basically living outdoors. We ask for a number of estimates on the roof, and despite the fact that one of the roofers has had his license revoked for construction violations, he says he has the most experience dealing with roof problems like ours, and so we hire him anyway. He begins to show up every day, but it seems as though he only examines the roof over and over again, taking pictures and measuring, but not actually doing anything. One day as I watch him again examining the missing roof, I ask him just when he plans to get to work. He tells me that he is still formulating the best plan of action, and that as soon as he has a full plan in place, he’s going to get started. I’m slightly irritated – there’s no roof over our dining room, after all – but he’s supposedly the best, and I figure it’s probably better if I don’t interfere too much.

In the meantime, I have promised the kids for years that we would have a pool as soon as we moved, and I just don’t think I can make them wait. I contact the pool company, and they come out to give me an estimate. It’s staggeringly expensive, but a promise is a promise, and so I go back to my bank where, miraculously, I’m given additional loans. At dinner the next night, I tell my kids that we’ll break ground on the new pool in a few weeks, and of course, they are ecstatic. My wife is worried, though, because of the other problems that remain unaddressed, but I think I know how to pacify her. I’ve been promising her the new master bedroom, and deep down, she’s as excited about that as the kids are about the pool. The next day, a contractor shows up to give us an estimate on the addition. It’s almost as much as the pool, and while I feel a little sick to my stomach, I am able to borrow against my mortgage to get the cash to pay for it. When she hears that we’re going to begin building her dream bedroom, she nearly forgets about the missing roof.

The following week, we’ve broken ground on the pool, the plans are in place for the new bedroom, and the roofer still shows up every day to tinker with his plan, but he hasn’t yet made the repairs. At the same time, the missing roof has become such a constant that we’re almost immune to the inconvenience and discomfort, and we continue to wait for the roofer to work his magic. But then things change dramatically when I get some bad news: I’ve been laid off at work. While they offer me a decent severance package, with the job market as tough as it is, I know it’s going to be hard to find work. In an attempt to soften the blow that the news will be to my wife, after I leave work for the last time, I go right to Sears and buy the best washer, dryer and refrigerator they have with my Sears Card – the only credit card on which I’m not maxed out!

When I get home, all is not well, though, as our pipes have burst and the first floor is flooded. The pool company asks if I still want to move forward with the pool, and the contractor offers to halt construction of the new master bedroom, but I am terrified of disappointing my wife and kids, so I go full speed ahead on both. Even the environmental company is nice enough to offer to cancel our consultation, but my in-laws have made it clear that they won’t visit us unless our house is environmentally friendly, and I do not want to cross my mother-in-law! The environmental consultant is aware of my situation, and amazingly, he tells me that I can delay my payment by a year if necessary, and so I tell him to go ahead and get started on making our house green. My mother-in-law is thrilled! All in all, things seem pretty good.

Does all of this sound completely and utterly crazy? It certainly should. The scary thing is that this is nearly the equivalent of what Barack Obama has done in his 50 days in office. In this little allegory, I’m President Obama. The house is the country. The roof is our economy and financial system, and the roofer, obviously, represents Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. My wife and kids are the various far Left constituencies who helped elect Obama, and to whom he is politically indebted. The pool represents the Obama budget, the master bedroom is the stimulus package, and the plans to make the house green symbolize Obama’s recently unveiled healthcare initiative. My father-in-law is Harry Reid, and my terrifying mother-in-law is Nancy Pelosi.

In the last few months, our economic and financial problems have worsened dramatically, and as things have deteriorated, the administration has looked at the problems, talked about the problems, but really done nothing to fix the problems. Despite this glaring and fundamental issue, Obama continues his incredibly ambitious and expensive plans with almost no regard for the growing economic mayhem around him. Last week, on the same day the Dow again lost another 4%, Obama announced plans for healthcare reform with a $650 Billion price tag. He is prepared to sign a $3.6 Trillion budget which will not only double our national debt and add more to our deficit than all of his predecessors combined, he is prepared to sign this budget replete with its 8570 earmarks – earmarks Obama promised to do away with. All the while, our economic and financial predicaments become more and more severe, and Tim Geithner has yet to offer any sort of concrete plans to address it. The proverbial house is crumbling around him, but the president seems determined to make it bigger anyway.

Our new president didn’t cause the problems he now faces, but he has exacerbated them. What Obama and his administration should have done – and perhaps still can and should do – is set aside their other plans and focus almost myopically on the economy. The other initiatives can and must wait. Fix this, and the political capital Obama will have will be nearly limitless, and the American people will support almost anything he wants. But fix it, and fix it now. As one of the ubiquitous talking heads noted on television recently, Obama and his team are remarkably good at politics, but are they as skilled at governing? Let's hope so.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

No Thanks from an Ungrateful Nation

Two weeks ago tomorrow, Barack Obama took the oath of office, becoming the 44^th President of the United States. Obama’s swearing-in also represented the end of the George W. Bush Administration, a fact greeted with vindictive glee by many across the country. Even though I did not vote for President Obama, I wish him well, and I appreciate seeing our democracy at work. There is something very powerful and very moving about the peaceful transfer of power we are privileged to witness every four or eight years. I also join so many others in celebrating our country’s first African-American president – a truly extraordinary and historic moment for our nation. I cannot, however, take part in the mean-spirited jubilation that accompanied the end of Bush’s tenure in the White House.

It is very fashionable to deride Bush, his administration, and his record. It is “cool” to hate President Bush, and to flippantly talk of how he “shredded the Constitution” after September 11^th, or “lied to the country” in the run-up to the Iraq War. It’s popular to fault Bush and Bush alone for the current financial crisis. So loud were the criticisms and so organized the accompanying media narrative that it is simply assumed Bush deserved all of the blame for the myriad missteps in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. East Coast elites ridicule Bush’s inarticulateness and sneer with certainty at his alleged stupidity. West Coast, Hollywood-types blanch at his lack of “sophistication” and even professed shame for their citizenship in a country led by the proudly un-hip Texan. The mainstream media not only share these sentiments, but have also perpetuated the same narratives through sometimes alarmingly blatant and slanted reporting. Through it all, Bush refused to alter his course, resisted what might have been a natural inclination to change for the sake of popularity or political expedience, and in doing so, only further enraged them all.

Of course President Bush made mistakes. All presidents do – all people do. 9/11 forced Bush into some difficult and sometimes controversial decisions, but to assign ulterior and sinister motives to his choices is simply unfounded. While I do not agree with those who believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake, I absolutely believe that for far too long, the war was managed poorly, and as Commander-in-Chief, Bush is ultimately responsible. He indeed deserves some of the blame for the financial and economic predicaments in which we now find ourselves, but in fairness, many of the seeds of this systemic failure were planted over a long period of time, including during previous administrations and in years when oversight was the responsibility of a Democratic Congress. Without question, there were mistakes made during Hurricane Katrina and the botched handling of her aftermath – at every level of government – yet somehow then-Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin both seemed to avoid the finger-pointing directed at President Bush. Admittedly, Bush is a poor speaker, and in this era of modern media, the ability to skillfully communicate is a very important quality for an effective president. And while his poor diction often failed him in making his case to the American people, ineloquent oratory does not always equate to idiocy. As I recently argued to a friend, while Bush is surely no genius, it is simply impossible for anyone to run and win a national campaign – much less to function as the most powerful man in the world – without a degree of intelligence that surpasses that of the average person. Bush is no exception, and he is no idiot either.

Seemingly lost in the frenzy of hatred and criticism surrounding Bush is the proverbial elephant in the room: there has not been a single subsequent terrorist attack in America in the seven years and four months since September 11^th, 2001. The apparent ease with which so many seemingly disregard this singular but seminal accomplishment reflects an unattractive and ignorant naivety on their part, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of the world in which we now live. How quickly so many seem to forget the pain we collectively felt when, as a country, we were blindsided by that horrific day. How shortsighted so many appear to be in blocking out the intense fear that those heinous acts caused us. How ungrateful so many apparently are for the fact that Bush and his administration managed to do what even the most optimistic of us would have considered impossible that horrible day. And how ironic that New York, the city most affected by the horrors of 9/11, served as the effective epicenter of the anti-Bush movement.

There are increasing signs that Bush’s successor has begun to understand the difficult realities of the world and maybe even to gain some appreciation for the job that President Bush did under circumstances you and I cannot fully know. The most telling of these, obviously, was Obama’s decision to keep Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. It was also striking that, even while he fulfilled his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay, he is not sure what precisely to do with its detainees and not finding many prisons (here or abroad) eager to welcome those currently held there – problems also cited by the Bush Administration as hindrances to closing GITMO. The story was similar with the issue of “torture”, a favorite charge of the anti-Bush crowd, and an issue on which their leader, Obama, is also now hedging. I imagine the fact that he now receives a daily intelligence briefing has something to do with the beginnings of this migration from Candidate Obama to President Obama. I predict we’ll see further moves on the part of our new president that, while probably done quietly or masked cleverly, will still serve to maintain many of the same practices and policies for which he and his party so roundly criticized Bush. In many ways, this would be the ultimate exoneration for President Bush.

I suspect – and frankly hope – that the same Americans who so cavalierly badmouth Bush today will eventually understand the good he did while president. While it may take years, as more facts come to light about Bush’s tenure, I hope that his steadfast judgment and pragmatic choices will eventually be vindicated as I believe they should be. We cannot know now and may never be able to fully know the information to which he was privy – the information on which so many of his most controversial decisions were likely based. But what we should know and appreciate now is that the last eight years have been among the most challenging ever faced by any president, and that in this time of unfamiliar and unprecedented difficulties, we as a nation were served well by President Bush’s consistency, by his commitment to principles, and by his constant goal of doing what he felt would best keep this country safe.

While I know that George W. Bush is not one to be caught up in concerns about his legacy, he deserves one far better than that which his critics are already trying to write for him now, he deserves more than the jeers and boos he received from the crowds on the National Mall at the Inauguration, and most immediately, he deserves the thanks of what is currently an ungrateful nation.

I Pledge...

Today we inaugurated Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. It was wonderful moment for our nation. I am sincerely proud of our country, and of our new president.

And while I hate to be negative on such an overwhelmingly positive day, something was brought to my attention today that I simply cannot ignore. This is not the fault of President Obama or of any Democrat or politician. I do not blame them in the least.

I do, however, blame the participants in the below video (as well as the like-minded people they are representing) for being so self-congratulatory, self-righteous, narcissistic and immature. (It even dwarfs "Our American Prayer", though they are part of the same disturbing trend of Hollywood celebrities vastly overstepping their boundaries, and because of their wealth and fame, reaching -- and, frighteningly, probably influencing -- millions).

Let me make one thing perfectly clear about what I pledge. Unlike the men and women in the below video, I pledge to always do everything I can to be a better person and yes, a better citizen. It does not matter whether the man or woman for whom I voted occupies the White House, or whether the political winds are blowing my way. I am first and always a proud American, and just as I was a proud American witnessing Obama's inauguration yesterday, I will remain a proud American throughout the four or even eight years he remains my president, regardless of whether or not I agree with his policies and decisions. That is my pledge.

Apparently the same cannot be said for Ashton, Demi and friends, now apparently awakened to their newfound patriotism and commitment to the greater good. Where was this altruism over the last eight years? Could Laura Linney really not stop using the plastic bags at the grocery store while Bush was president? Why is it that only when getting their [political] way are they willing to use their bully pulpit for an inarguably good cause?

I encourage and welcome your thoughts and reactions.

Without further ado...

MySpace Celebrity and Katalyst present The Presidential Pledge

Remember Henry?

Do you remember my dog, Henry, whom I told you about a few months ago here? Well, here he is, this morning, on Good Morning America!

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6635910


Hope you enjoy it as much as Henry did!