It's how he (OK, OK, or she) steps up to the responsibilities of office. Take Barack Obama. One of the biggest challenges he's facing as president is the uncontrollable and unsustainable growth of federal government spending, deficits and debt. His response? Establish a blue-ribbon commission to recommend solutions. That's what's known as kicking the can down the road—and whatever else you might care to call it, leadership it ain't. 

Posted by tmg110 at 8:57 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Yesterday someone asked me to name the worst movie I've ever seen! A challenging question! Tinsel town is always developing new and creative ways of blowing megabucks on absolute crap. I could not, therefore, confine myself to a single citation—it would have to be a list. So let me think about it, but for now I do want to mention one of the greatest and most obnoxious stinkers of all time: The Magus (1968), based on the almost-as-bad novel of the same name by John Fowles. Don't be fooled by the fact that it stars Michael Caine and Anthony Quinn, plus a young and beauteous Candice Bergen. By turns tedious and unintentionally funny, The Magus is cinematic junk. Well, why wouldn't it be? This movie is a near perfect expression of the Zeitgeist of the late, unlamented Sixties.

Stand by for the full list, coming soon to a blog near you.

Posted by tmg110 at 7:38 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Incidentally, my own congressman, Democrat Joe Donnelly of Indiana's 2nd Congressional District, announced yesterday that he will vote no if the Senate health care "reform" plan comes up for consideration in the House. He voted in favor of the House version of ObamaCare. Donnelly said that the abortion language in the Senate bill is unacceptable to him. I have no doubt, however, that he was also swayed by the constituent protests against ObamaCare (including a couple from me) that have deluged his office in recent days.

Posted by tmg110 at 7:31 AM EST

Updated: Thursday, 11 March 2010 7:38 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

…for ObamaCare?

I say no. My evidence? You can bet your bottom dollar that if Nancy Pelosi had the votes to shove this thing through, she'd do it. Remember, Obama want this done by March 18. But there's no vote scheduled in the House. Ergo, the necessary support just isn't there.

Posted by tmg110 at 7:24 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

In a scathing Washington Post commentary on David Axelrod’s recent New York Times profile (I discussed it here), Peter Wehner remarks:

I can understand why Washington isn't for everyone. I'm less tolerant, however, toward those who work themselves into exhaustion in order to find a special place in Washington, and who work themselves into further exhaustion in order to retain that special place, and who then mock the political culture they long to be a part of and to which they contribute.

Truth be told, it is an honor to play a role in shaping American politics, especially through governing, and especially through service in the White House. If out of disgust or disillusionment people want to return to Chicago or wherever else they came from, then they should do so, the sooner the better. What they shouldn't do is to pretend to be repelled by what they have been captivated by.

Too true. There Axelrod sits in his White House office, bitching and moaning about the city he sold his soul to reach. It’s self-pitying, immature, unseemly behavior from a man in a position of such power and influence. That he’s one of the President’s closest confidants and advisers tells you a lot about Barack Obama.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:37 AM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 10 March 2010 8:40 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The Obama Administration has an uneasy relationship with the concept of deadlines. The President and his team keep drawing lines in the sand, only to have them erased by reality. The latest example:

Hoyer rebuffs Gibbs on Mar. 18 deadline

March 18 is the date on which Obama wants health care "reform" to be completed, so he can have a gala signing ceremony before jetting off on a trip to Asia. But the votes aren't there in the House, as Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, knows very well. So Hoyer had to slap down Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, when the latter stated that March 18 was a firm deadline for the passage of ObamaCare.

This whole business of governing is just so hard, isn't it, Mr. President?

Posted by tmg110 at 8:15 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

This piece by Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics dovetails with my earlier post on the political risks that ObamaCare poses for the Democratic Party. His analysis and mine agree to a point, but Cost argues that the Democratic Party itself will suffer severe damage if ObamaCare passes:

The Democratic Party is broader than its progressive intellectuals and media cheerleaders. It has the majority not just because of San Francisco, California—but also Murfreesboro, Tennessee and Zanesville, Ohio. Those places voted Democratic in the 2008 House elections. Some progressives, especially in the blogosphere, see that as a problem—the "ConservaDems" they elect hold up true progress. But it's historically the greatest strength of the Democratic Party, whose appeal has long been much broader than the GOP's.

House Democrats should bear this in mind as they consider the current reforms. This bill would signal not just a major change in health care, but also in the Democratic Party itself. The end result will be a smaller, more narrowly liberal party that is less trusted by the mass public to respect its collective judgment. The party will keep San Francisco and The New Republic, but sooner or later they'll lose Murfreesboro and Zanesville.

He has a point. Perhaps a distinction that should be made between the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party. What’s good for the former may turn out to be very, very bad for the latter.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:07 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

You may wonder why California, the largest and richest state in the nation, is essentially bankrupt. Students in the University of California system, who’ve just been hit with a whopping 37% tuition hike, would certainly like to know what’s going on. So would hard-pressed taxpayers and struggling small businesses.

The answer is simple: California is a laboratory of progressivism. For a generation now, the Golden State has been meeting unmet needs, coddling the public sector and drinking the green Kool-Aid of radical environmentalism. The net result of all this advanced social policy has been to wreck California’s public finances. Hence those hefty UC tuition increases.

But (if I may paraphrase a line from Animal Farm) though all Californians may be equal, some are more equal than others. As noted here by the Wall Street Journal, California’s ultra-generous public-sector pension system has grown into a crushing financial burden. California’s public employees’ unions, the precious darlings of Democratic legislators in Sacramento, are simply devouring the state budget.

Last year, for example, $3 billion had to be diverted from other programs—including $800 million from higher education—to meet state pension obligations. And up goes tuition. So students—most of whom, I have no doubt, of advanced progressive political views are taking it to the streets with their protest signs and chants. Sorry, kids, but the very politicians you support are selling you down the river for the benefit of their deep-pocketed union supporters. Maybe someday you’ll learn.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:03 AM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 10 March 2010 8:06 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

There's a feeling among certain member of the punditocracy that ObamaCare will pass because it must. The argument is, roughly, that Democrats need to show that they're able to "govern." It could perhaps be argued that merely passing legislation doesn't exactly demonstrate one's ability to run things, but let's leave that point aside. Does the Democratic Party have a vital political interest in passing health care legislation?

I would say yes—no doubt about it. the Democratic Party, as a corporate entity, needs to pass some kind of health care "reform" bill. Failure to do so would damage if not cripple the Obama Administration, besides making the Democratic congressional leadership look weak and ineffective.

But the Democratic Party is not a monolithic corporate entity. The real question is whether or not this argument resonates with doubtful or embattled Democrats in the Senate and particularly the House. With their own political survival on the line, why should they stick out their necks for Obama, Pelosi and Reid?

I believe that the fate of ObamaCare hinges on the credibility of Obama, Pelosi and Reid in the eyes of their own party in Congress. After a year of frustrating, bruising and politically damaging debate, it come down to this in the minds of many congressional Democrats: "What's in this for me?"

Tough question to answer.

Posted by tmg110 at 7:48 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Dan Rather on Barack Obama (during an appearance with Chris Matthews on MSNBC):

[P]art of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama's leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. "Listen he just hasn't been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death." And a version of, "Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate" this is what's been used against him, "but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."

Watermelons! So will Rather be hounded off the air over this prize example of racial insensitivity? Somehow I doubt it. But a question occurs: After the forgery debacle that ended Rather's career at CBS, why is this doofus still on TV?

Posted by tmg110 at 7:35 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink