Dear President Obama,

Back in 1990 when Saddam Hussein tried to expand his sphere of influence into Kuwait, I supported President George H. W. Bush’s decision to expel from Kuwait, and subsequently contain, Hussein’s forces within the no-fly zones. I supported President Bill Clinton in 1998 when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act, and then bombed Hussein back into submission after Saddam got a little testy (and no, it wasn’t ‘wag the dog’). After September 11th, 2001, I was in full support of President George W. Bush sending our troops into Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power. I never believed Saddam Hussein was connected to the events on 9/11, and the WMD argument never really moved me. Yet, after witnessing a similar lawlessness in the Middle East reach across the oceans to send towers tumbling in New York, and after nearly 13 years of Hussein toying with U.N. inspections and the no-fly zone, as well as three American presidents, in 2003 I fully supported the war in Iraq. And to this day I still do.

So with that understanding of my perspective, realize that it isn’t easy for me to say this, but Mr. President, send the troops home now. Send the troops in Afghanistan home. Send the troops in Iraq home. Please, send them home now; don’t let another American soldier die if you can help it.

It’s not that I don’t think we could win. Our military, our soldiers, are the finest in the world. Their skill, experience and tactical ability are more than apt to complete the job. Moreover, when you entered office, success in these two wars was within our grasp. With all of the talk about the bad things you “inherited” when you were elected, you also inherited a war in Iraq that was ours to lose and a relatively straight forward, though perhaps more difficult endeavor in Afghanistan. This was low hanging fruit, a parting gift from George, and someone with your intellect and charisma could have completed the job. You would have been able to take the credit for bringing peace back to our country and theirs, and given the Democratic Party as a whole, some real national security bonafides to hang their hat on.

What’s funny is that one of the few positions you held during your campaign that I couldn’t argue with was your stance on the “good” war in Afghanistan. That and your statements about finally capturing Osama Bin Laden. Earlier this year when you came out with your Afghanistan strategy, it was one of the few moments in your presidency where I found myself in agreement with your policies. But like so much of your campaign happy talk, this wasn’t a position held by conviction but rather political calculation shifting with the winds. And instead of taking the reigns and ensuring success in at least Afghanistan if not also Iraq, you pontificated and deliberated for ten months, letting success slip.

I’ll be the first to say that Bush made many mistakes in his handling of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, among other things. But amidst all of the theories around why Bush went to war (oil, Haliburton, to avenge his father), and all of the questions around whether we had the right to pre-emptively invade another country, one thing no one could ever question was whether Bush believed in the mission, or whether he wanted to win. He wanted to win badly. Cheney wanted to win so much it scared people. Can the same be said for you?

I got my first taste of your convictions when right after getting elected, you pledged, without a plan and with no pressing need, to close the terrorist holding facility at Guantanamo Bay. With the economy in shambles and all of the other issues facing America at the time, this wasn’t necessary. It was pure politics on your part. The first of many moves not based on what’s best for the country, but always good for party. A continuation of your campaign whose main feature was repudiating Bush. But it quickly became evident why Bush put the terrorists there. Perhaps the ole Texas bumpkin had his reasons after all, and there were many; we didn’t want them on our soil, no one else wanted them either, and some of these dangerous enemies of our country would inevitably go free if not kept at Gitmo. To this day, despite your continued insistence to close Gitmo, your plan is about as dead as Greg Craig’s White House career.

Your administration’s next shining moment was when Homeland Security, under the new leadership of Janet Napolitano, released a report raising concerns about home grown right wing terrorists. Not only did this move trivialize the real threats that our country actually faces, but it divided our nation in a way that perhaps you didn’t understand. Despite what some commenters say, I’m a pretty moderate guy, yet I felt like you were talking about me. And changing the name of terrorist attacks to “man caused disasters” and the War on Terror to “Overseas Contingency Operations?” Well, that’s just stupid and unserious from an administration that campaigned on being smart and nuanced.

That you’d even suggest investigating CIA operatives who helped keep us safe for 8 years after we were attacked is incomprehensible. But it was the way you came out and said there wouldn’t be an investigation only for your Attorney General to turn around and say the opposite which is what really challenged my trust. I mean really? Let’s put the bald faced dishonesty by proxy of your AG aside for a minute. Any thought about the future impacts of this? Do you even want to chance demoralizing your own intelligence agency in the midst of two wars, merely to settle a political score? You’ve also opened a door; in 8, or possibly 4 years it may be your administration that’s the subject of a political kangaroo court. Why?

Your treatment of the very General you hired to win in Afghanistan is an outrage, and let’s face it, You’ve dithered. You’ve dithered hard. If our wars could be won with dithering the troops would be home for their ticker tape parade and I’d be planning my next vacation in Babylon. But wars are won with heart, conviction, and good strategy. You have none of these, and although you’ve not made a decision on what to do in Afghanistan, you’re lack of a decision has already let our enemy know the truth - that you are not committed to win. And if you aren’t winning a war, you’re losing it. Our enemies by contrast aren’t looking for “off ramps.” They know that you can’t vote present on fighting war.

From the terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, to the amount of attention given to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, it seems like identity and gender politics, and political correctness seem to be as important, if not more important than the actual function of the military, which is to keep this nation safe. And this latest idiotic gesture of the 9/11 hijackers, previously in a hole in Cuba, “finally [facing] justice” by trying them in New York City? Irrespective of the increased danger and inconvenience that average New Yorkers who already had to live the nightmare of 9/11 will have to bear? Irrespective of the fact that the supreme court found military tribunals more than appropriate? Irrespective of the fact that these terrorists were not captured in the U.S., not citizens, not captured by police, their evidence not processed by a crime scene unit and not following a typical civilian chain of custody, and with no Miranda rights? Irrespective of the fact that some were water-boarded? Irrespective of the fact that now, as with all Americans who face our civil criminal justice system, these animals are now considered innocent until such time they are proven guilty? For real?

The decision to hold these trials in New York is so flawed, so poorly thought out that it’s incomprehensible. This is the worst decision you’ve made, and ten months in, I’d expect some improvement in your decision making capabilities. The attacks on 9/11 weren’t directed toward an individual or group, but rather to the entire nation. One of the targets was a major center of business, the other the headquarters of our military, the Pentagon. Had flight 93 made it to the terrorists destination, our White House would have been the third target - that’s two out of three targets representing our government. These attacks were not mere crimes but an acts of war carried out on our country by a foreign enemy.

This isn’t about rule of law either, because the tribunals, which have been employed throughout American history, were found by the Supreme Court to be lawful and appropriate. Meanwhile our justice system has its shortcomings - criminals get off on technicalities and innocent people go to jail for technicalities every day. Our civil justice system, which isn’t on trial, simply isn’t designed for dealing with war crimes. There’s the issue of classified information, which if provided to the defense as part of discovery could be leaked to terrorists. That is if it isn’t dismissed outright because of how it was obtained. The only way to get around these issues is to twist the already twisted legal system, setting precedents that erode all of our rights. And does this now mean that soldiers fighting in Afghanistan need to also worry about reading the enemy their Miranda rights and collecting all evidence with tweezers and ziplocks while RPGs are fired at them? Yes, the first WTC bombers were tried by the FBI and look how well that worked out for the nation. At the end of the day, the reasons to do this are few and political; the reasons not to do this are many and relate to the safety of the nation and the people of New York. And it was precisely this type of thinking that preceded our getting attacked on 9/11 in the first place.

You’re not serious about winning the wars in either Afghanistan or Iraq, you don’t really understand that we face a dangerous enemy, and you’ve quite literally even denied that there is a war on terror at all. You lack the will, conviction, experience, and even leadership required to responsibly end the wars we are involved in. The very worst thing you could do right now is send more troops into harms way only to continue your politicizing and dithering while more troops die in a conflict that we lost when Americans went to the ballot box last November. Send the troops home now Mr. President.

Regards,

The Obnoxious American

First off, let me say that given the historical hatred for Jews in the world, I am loath to write an article critical of members of my own faith. But this needs to be said, and I'm going to say it. To all Jews reading this, take the time and fully digest the ideas being discussed here.

Yes, I'm Jewish, but unlike most of my brethren, I voted McCain. Living in New York, I've been amazed by just how many fellow Jews supported Obama in the 2008 election. Many of them Liberals, proud, loud, outspoken Liberals who won't even debate with people like me, because of my supposed conservative affliction. That my Jewish brothers and sisters overwhelmingly supported Obama just didn't make any sense to me in the run-up to last year's election. As events have unfolded in the last five-plus months of Obama's rule, it's nothing short of astounding that a majority of Jews supported him. What were you guys thinking?

Here was a candidate running on a platform of engagement with the Iranian government, a sworn enemy of Israel, whose very leader denies the Holocaust and who has used "wipe Israel off the map" in a sentence. Even if President Obama were really as charismatic as the media and his sycophantic followers insist, this alone would not be enough to change the direction of a bad guy like Ahmadinejad, forget about shadow government of Khomeini which is really in control.

Many noted Obama's reference, during his address in Cairo, to American meddling in Iran back in the late 50's. Of course, Obama failed to mention a few things about that episode. For example, American meddling in Iran was in response to meddling from the Soviets. Would the Liberal Jew prefer Obama's alternative, that the U.S. stay out of it and allow the Soviets, who had a long history of Jewish persecution and who, during the period in question, actually backed the Israeli state's Arab enemies to expand their reach into resource rich Iran? I wonder how Jews who backed Obama felt when they heard Obama retell this edited, yet "tumultuous" history. I thought about the Iranian Jews I knew who fled persecution during the 1979 Iranian revolution, during which the U.S.-backed regime that Obama derided was violently overthrown. These Iranian Jews came to the U.S., often with just the clothes on their backs. If you were a Jew in New York in the 80's, chances were you knew an Iranian Jew with this exact story. The regime that these Jews were fleeing from in Iran in the early 80s is the very one that Obama would directly negotiate with now, without any conditions. This was an Obama campaign pledge, not some dismissible, sotomayoresque comment in a few youtube videos, but a major stance of Obama's, laid out for the entire Jewish community to see.

And for the first time that I can remember, it felt like something was actually happening in Iran. It was special, compelling, and horrifying. True, the people were all riled up about one candidate versus the other, when both were handpicked by Khamenei (to whom Obama has referred as "the Supreme Leader"). I wouldn't be surprised if Ahmadinejad did legitimately win the election, but this is not about who won. The whole situation speaks to something much deeper. Obviously the people of Iran are getting a taste of what it's like elsewhere in the world, thanks to technology and neighbors who are starting to get more freedom, and they naturally want some of their own. God bless them for that, and as Jews with a history of persecution and oppression ourselves, we should be the first to stand up with them and offer our support for their cause.

Yet, we watched in horror the images of Iranian women on the streets of Iran with blood pouring out of their necks -- injuries inflicted by a state which is trying to build nuclear weapons, supports terrorism, and has been complicit in the killing of Americans and Jews. At the same time, we saw that the American president who was supported by as much as 80% of American Jews could barely muster convincing support for the patriots of Iran, who only want what we have. Oh I know, Obama was not trying to meddle or paint the protesters as U.S. puppets. And that line worked until a week later when Obama did meddle, albeit tepidly.

As the protests in Iran have been tamped down once again under the boot of Iranian tyranny, it's clear Obama's wasn't wise policy -- it was akin to voting "present." And the too little, too late words of consternation were mere duck and cover. This whole episode of the administration's handling of foreign policy makes a Gong show act look polished; it is the clearest evidence yet of Obama's on-the-job training. Watching the president sheepishly following Angela Merkel's lead on Friday, as if she were saying to Obama, "Let me show you how this works," was a humbling moment for Americans, and distressing to people across the world who are fighting for freedom.

To make matters worse, there are reports that Obama has been sending secret letters to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, to ensure post-election discussions. I wonder whether political pressure will eventually force Obama to rethink his position on open and direct talks with Iran, because there is no chance he will change his diplomatic trajectory based on something as silly as morals (and no indication of such from his staff on the Sunday talk shows). You can't blame Obama though, this is the very platform he ran on: George Bush was the problem, not the Mullahs in Iran. And a majority of Jews bought it -- hook, line, and sinker.

Yet Jewish support for Obama is far from a fluke. Most Jews also self-identify as Democrats -- Liberals, even. But it's not as if the Democratic party, or worse, the liberal wing of the party, to whose views Obama subscribes, has been a particularly good friend of Israel over the years. Liberals are generally antiwar, pro appeasement, and in my experience, anti-Israel. Just look at the way Obama has been in favor of meddling, not in Iran but in Israel. I'm not saying that support for Israel should be the only, or even an important, measure of on what a Jew should base his or her vote. And I'll be the first to admit that Israel is far from perfect. But Israel is Jewish land, and if the Israeli Jews, people who hold the same moral values as Jews from New York, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, really did want to perform Genocide on the Palestinians, as so many Liberals like to claim, then they would have done it already. Does any American Jew, Liberal or otherwise, really believe that the Israeli/Palestinian "peace process" is stalled because of Jewish settlements? It's safe to say that the endless barrage of unaimed rocket attacks, suicide murderers with ball bearing laced C4, and an Arab culture of anti-Semitic Jewish hatred is probably much more of a cause for the stalled peace process than any extensions some folks are putting on their houses in contested border land (which incidentally, has always been constructed in order to give Israel more space from attacks by their enemies).

So if Obama's Middle East policy isn't what drove Jewish voters to favor him, then what was it?

Was it the promise of a government-run health care option? I know lots of Jews of Russian descent, many of them in the New York area, and many of those a mere generation or two from Soviet Russia. Sure, we're not talking out and out communism here in America right? Just the health industry. And the banks, and insurance, and also American auto makers. I think taking assets from people who paid for and owned stock in G.M. and giving them to the UAW is nothing at all like Communism or Socialism. At least the Media is still free right? No, this is nothing like the nationalization of Nazi Germany, or Chavez' Venezuela, or countless other instances where freedom was snuffed out faster than you can punch a chad. We are Jewish and we want a Public Option NOW!

If you really think about it, there are few, if any, aspects of American Liberalism which are really compatible with being Jewish. One example is Obama's and the Liberals' obsession with identity politics, which is really legitimized racism and should give any Jew pause. Another example is Obama's and the Liberals' focus on equality, but not equality of rights, just the idea that we are all exactly equal in sum. All the same, no more, no less, not one deserving of more than any other regardless of our actions -- a distinctly non-Jewish sentiment, considering our historic celebration of achievement, as well as experience in the aforementioned Soviet Union. From gun control (Jews are generally law abiding, yet also often subject to prejudice, even in present-day New York, and would benefit from the constitutional right to defend themselves), to increased entitlement programs (dependency isn't something a Jew would aspire to), from "spreading the wealth" (property rights are codified in the Talmud), to even supporting abortion rights, the Jew who is a Liberal or a Democrat is a walking contradiction.

I know a few walking contradictions. And I've been wondering lately what they think of the way things have been going. I'm afraid to ask them honestly, because I'm worried that I'll be disappointed in them and their continued blinkered and rationalizing view. Or worse, if they do regret their vote, then I'll be rubbing it in that they made a terrible mistake voting for Obama, a mistake that in retrospect should have been obvious to them. After all, we're Jews, and we've all learned these lessons before.

If you've read my prior articles, then you know I am not too fond of the activities of the Obama administration. I've gotten criticism from my friends on the left for only complaining when I disagree with Obama, yet never saying anything about the good Obama has done. So for this article, I've decided to not discuss the disagreements I have with the Obama administration — this article isn't about that.

This isn't about Obama promising during the campaign that he was not for "big government or small government but smart government" and then passing a massive increase in the size of government and it's spending programs that in a mere 90 days, exceeded everything Bush did in 8 years. Nor is this article about using a crisis to pass a massive stimulus package (without Obama's promised 5 days of sunlight) that isn't actually stimulative to the economy and won't really take effect until next year. This isn't at all about Obama running on hope, change and post partisanship and then merely implementing the liberal wish list as soon as he got into office.

I'm not griping about Obama's European apology tour, or that he bowed to the Saudi King and then lied about it. No rants about the cheesy gift to UK Prime Minester Gordon Brown of 25 region 1 DVD's that won't work in UK players. Nor any beef over the even more cheesy gift of an Ipod with audio of Obama's speeches to the Queen of England. Nothing on gladly shaking hands with Chavez or sitting idle for a 50 minute anti-US rant delivered by Daniel Ortega. I won't even complain about Obama's self centered relief that Ortega's bombast wasn't directed at him personally.

You won't find me pointing out the contradiction of Obama asking us to "put away childish things" in his inauguration, only to follow that inspiring pledge with an endless attack on GOP strawmen, as opposed to bonafide GOP positions. I won't poke fun at Obama promising to have a lobbyist free administration, only to break that rule time and again where expedient. Nor will I chide him on continuing to claim that his vetting process is held to a higher standard even after hiring lobbyists as well as admitted tax evaders. I'm not even going to mention Obama's seeming dependence on telepromters, though I am thankful that he seems to have added a third teleprompter in the center. Now watching him speak isn't nearly as much like a tennis match as it was before.

I could be upset about Obamas defaming of returning veterans, or of "Republican terrorists" but I won't. Nor will I make an issue about Obama letting Mexico and their drug cartel problems drive changes to our second ammendment rights, which by the way are guarunteed by the constitution. There won't be a complaint about Obama promising a tax cut for 95% for Americans, even for those that don't pay any income taxes. Nor will I raise the specter of Obama's cap and trade program, a behind the scenes tax increase which will raise the cost of everything on 100% of Americans, and won't actually do a single thing to reduce emissions or the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere except perhaps by way of economic atrophy. Obama's reversal of the embryonic stem cell federal funding ban as a triumph of sound science over the false choice of moral values will not be covered here.

The Obnoxious American will not be pointing out that while hundreds of thousands of Americans were losing their jobs, Obama was eating waygu beef with his buddies in the white house, or flitting around the country to continue his endless campaign. I won't chastise the man for holding a press conference, summit, or town hall, on every single issue that comes up, but makes mere passing reference on North Korean missle launches and racial utterances by the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad. This American won't be talking about Obama's preposterous claim to cut 2 trillion in spending by assuming the Iraq war will last ten more years at surge costs. And you can be damn sure that the topic of Obama's release of CIA memos on the use of waterboarding, but redacting any detail on what those tactics yeilded in terms of saved American lives following 9/11 will absolutely not be discussed here.

I won't be talking about any of that. In fact, I won't be talking about anything.

President Obama didn't win office on experience, credentials, or accomplishment. He won for one reason only: who he is. He has a winning personality, and America had a love affair with their new American Idol; rewarding him with its highest office. Politics went from being about policy to being about personality. Republicans who supported Obama didn't care about his specific positions, they just felt that it was "time for a change," and were moved by Obama's flowing oratory. Even those of us who didn't support Obama were at times moved by it, and personally speaking, I disagreed with much of what Obama ran on.

Prior to this last election cycle, politics, and especially presidential politics (at least in my memory), were never centered around personality, or wanting to have a beer with the candidate. Reagan won in large part due to the poor performance of Carter, the Iran hostage crisis and inflation. Bush Sr. won on the tails of a successful Reagan presidency. Clinton won mainly due to the interference of third party candidate, Ross Perot. Bush won in a near even split of the electorate. In all of these elections, the personality of the candidate had less to do with getting elected than their policies did. In fact, more often than not, it was a choice of the lesser of evils based on their policy stance, and personality was largely irrelevant.

The exact opposite was true with the election of Obama. During the campaign, the most common description of Obama was that from a policy standpoint, he was a blank slate, a vessel in which his fans could place their hopes and dreams. His campaign slogans reflected this by using vague terms like "hope" and "change," and enthusiastically telling supporters, "Yes we can," as if before Obama, they weren't sure if they could. He was a master of non-specifics, and of high minded, soaring, intellectual and often times inspiring, if vague, rhetoric.

For the first time, it wasn't the greatness of the country, or of the structure of our government and freedoms set forth by the framers, which inspired confidence in America and would get us through the economic crisis. No longer did we put our stock in the idea that there is something special about Americans, all Americans, that despite the odds, despite how bleak the picture was, that we would always, via our ingenuity, hard work and freedom, come through the problems of the day; as we had before, time and time again, when facing worse threats in our 200 plus year history. This time, America's doomed fate could only be saved by one person: a man named Barack Obama, who given the chance, promised to change the country, without much real discussion about how.

Sure Obama had plans and specifics on his website, and yes, he did describe plans in his speeches. But there were deep, unanswered questions about those plans. And there was a larger question about the nature of this change and the true identity of America -- touched upon in episodes such as Obama's encounter with Joe the Plumber. But the media glossed over these questions and relentlessly attacked critics as either ideologues, fakes, or racists. They laughed loudly at any suggestion that Obama represented closet socialism, while suggesting that since Bush had dabbled in the same pool, this wasn't really such a stretch anyway.

To make matters worse, McCain ran a lousy campaign, which took away any confidence the right and independents might have had in him. Amidst the visceral hatred for Bush, McCain nailed the coffin of his presidency shut with the choice of Palin as his running mate and various comments he proudly made about his lack of knowledge in finance and technology. Obama won by a near landslide, but not by running on a liberal or other ideology. He won because he was Obama and McCain was not.

To a lesser degree, Tim Giethner's confirmation followed a similar trajectory. Here was a man who, by his actions, should never have been considered for the position. Yet America was facing a crisis so dire, we were told, that we must overlook his flaws and he must be confirmed. Again, it wasn't America or the system of capitalism that had built all this wealth for all these years that could resolve the situation. The last eight years supposedly proved that history didn't matter and the old fashioned notions of capitalism just weren't working. The chickens were finally coming home to roost, and we needed change. From a treasury perspective, it all rested on this one man, this really smart man. Geithner held the key, he had the solution that no other person had. And besides, Obama chose him.

Since the dramatics and grandeur of the election, inauguration and cabinet appointment process, Obama has revealed himself in many non-presidential ways. The hope and change have turned, in many cases, into despair and cynicism. He hasn't forwarded a single new idea, or post-partisan anything, while pointing fingers at the prior administration, the greed of the private sector -- anything and everything except, perhaps, the public's response to his own unfinished policies. Unless you consider "change" as following liberal ideology to the letter, and doing it badly, we haven't had much of that either. All new presidents have their clumsy moments, but for Obama, that's all it's been. I have not observed any president in my lifetime require nearly as much on-the-job training.

Likewise with Geithner. His stock has fallen from a high to a low that would make Citibank blush. After several attempts to quell market concerns and show that he could lead, the markets instead learned that there was no there, there.

The true believers still do, and always will, believe, but that doesn't matter. The independents, the swing voters, even some moderate Republicans and Reagan Democrats -- these are the people who are the key to winning and losing an election, and they are starting to wake up to the reality that one person doesn't have the answers. Great speeches aside, we can't look to the government to fix our problems. The real solution isn't from some freshman treasury secretary, nor in the words read with great feeling from a teleprompter by an inexperienced president. The real solution to our woes is in the hands and hearts, and in the hard work we, as individual Americans, do every day.

Perhaps I am being too forward-looking, but I don't think so. Barring any event that would canonize Obama, and by extension his cabinet, and provided Obama continues on the trajectory that he's set in these first two months of his presidency, he will more quickly than Bush find himself with worse ratings. In the internet age, judgment is passed faster and sticks longer. These days, the best advice for a public figure is, "Don't play yourself," yet Obama already has. America's bold experiment of picking a president based purely on personality amid a lack of clear position on policy, is over. At least for one generation.

During the election, the budding economic crisis was being billed as one of the worst financial situations to face our country. Perhaps even worse than the Great Depression itself. While creating legislation for what would be named TARP, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid called on both candidates, Senators McCain and Obama, to get involved in the bailout. Later that week, McCain made the decision to cancel his appearance at the presidential debates in order for both candidates, at the behest of Reid, to go to Washington and help out with the bailout package.

The media and Democrats immediately and roundly criticized Senator John McCain, a war hero and former POW who never broke even under the horrific torture of the Vietcong, as being afraid to debate then-Senator Obama. Some claimed McCain was looking for an easy way out. The Obama Campaign commented that the debates will go on with or without McCain, as presidents should be able to do "more than one thing at a time." The media ignored the fact that Reid called for the candidates to get involved, and instead focused on Barney Frank's contention that McCain's move on the issue was a campaign ploy and that the candidates were not needed. Frank assured us that the TARP legislation was well in hand, being worked out perfectly fine without McCain or presidential campaign politics getting involved.

Fast forward a few months, President Obama and Democrats in Congress have demonized TARP as being yet another terrible legacy of the Bush administration. Obama made the following impassioned comment during his "state of the nation":

Now, I understand that, on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives bank bailouts with no strings attached and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions, but such an approach won’t solve the problem.

Not an ounce of irony to be found in his mouthing of that statement. Yet, when President (then Senator) Obama had the opportunity to change things in the first implementation of TARP, he instead decided to continue his endless campaign for President. Time and Obama's own comments have shown that Obama and Barney Frank were wrong. The TARP legislation was obviously not well in hand and in fact had many flaws. What President Obama is really saying when he criticizes TARP, is that his decision to continue campaigning was the wrong one. The media had it wrong when they pounced on McCain and his so-called campaign ploy to seem relevant. The verdict is in; TARP legislation would have benefited from the input of the two most important members of the two biggest political parties in America.

 

More importantly, the last 6 weeks of the Obama presidency has proven yet another premise of Obama's comments during that episode equally wrong - that presidents, or more accurately President Obama, should be able to do more than one thing at a time.

Since taking office, not a day has passed without President Obama touting some new policy, spending program or government overreach. Obama made grand claims about excluding lobbyists from his cabinet, only to back off this stance when reality made this difficult. Obama's cabinet picks have had more dirty laundry than any new President in recent history. Obama's 787 billion "reinvestment" plan was sub-contracted out to Nancy Pelosi, loaded with pork, and absent of real stimulus. Obama promoted Geithner's mortgage and housing plan, only to have the markets flip out at its utter lack of detail and questioning Geithner's readiness for the job once the plan was introduced. Obama's ten-year budget is full of fantasy and pork (8500 earmarks?!?), whose real costs are totally unknown. His health care plan is a mere down payment on government health care, but does not address the real questions around how to "fix" our medical system (electronic medical records isn't it). Not to mention the seemingly endless slide of the stock market, that even Bill Clinton recognized was not being helped (if not sabotaged) by Obama's Fear and Change rhetoric (which although Obama's largely gotten a pass on this one, Bush was severely attacked by the media for the same thing during 2001).

President Obama's forays into foreign policy have been equally as stuttering and ill considered. He engaged Russia on Iran, and was quickly rebuffed. He made noise about closing Guantanamo without having a real plan for doing so, and some terrorists have gotten off scot-free as a result. North Korea's Kim Jong Il and Iran's Ahmadinejad have already started to test the new president and his all-carrots-no-stick approach. He's pissed off our allies in Pakistan with missile attacks. And most recently, Obama kicked off his relationship with UK PM Gordon Brown with an inappropriate gift consisting of 25 DVD's.

Obama's scattershot promotion of his massive policy changes has been sweeping and ill considered. Rather than focus on making a single good policy, Obama has instead created 100 policies that are not fully fleshed. Meanwhile, as the stock market has dropped over 1600 points under his watch (over 3000 points since his election) his principal advisers are busy demonizing entertainers such as Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli, and (former Obama supporter) Jim Cramer for questioning the wisdom behind these policies. While Obama blames the prior administration for the current stock market decline, whines about inheriting this mess, and suggests that he doesn't care about the "gyrations of the market" (which reflects a forward looking view by investors of our economy), Americans are losing their nest eggs, and the world is losing confidence. Rather than make good on his campaign promises for greater bi-partisanship, he's been attacking GOP straw men — as opposed to actual GOP stances — with relentless fervor. Adding insult to injury, while Campaign Obama criticized President Bush for telling people to buy stuff after 9/11, President Obama's own stimulus plan and tax cuts are designed precisely to get people to buy stuff.

While some in the media are suggesting that Obama is more popular than ever, a closer look at his polling numbers reveals he is actually polling worse in job approval than former President George W. Bush during Bush's first term and first six weeks as President. Americans and the "chattering classes" are starting to realize that while a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time, Obama and his Democratic cohorts in congress don't seem to be able to do more than one thing at a time very well at all.

President Obama proved once again what we all knew about him: that he can give one hell of a speech. And, he hit it out of the park on this one. Even from my center-right position on the political map, there was much to like in here. From finally taking the hint from former President Clinton and talking America's economy up, saying that we will come through our current crisis, to preaching responsibility of the individual and families. While I have not agreed with the president on much since he took office a little over a month ago, I'd be lying if I didn't say that the performance was smart and  charming, and will definitely improve public opinion for Obama, as well as concern over his plans.

As good as this was for Obama and Democrats, is as bad as this ultimately will be for America. The underlying principles of the administration have not changed. The massive spending and handouts, the dependency-engendering provisions, are now the law of the land, and there is much more spending and hand outs to come. Prior to this speech, Americans were starting to wake up and get enraged at the massive overreach of the Democratic party. Consensus was forming that Americans, while in general viewing President Obama favorably, did not view greater government interference in their lives under the guise of help, nearly as favorably. The speech effectively will head this growing movement off at the pass. That President Obama gave a great speech shouldn't be a surprise, but I suspect that the media will treat it as such, and the average man on the street won't know enough about the issues to form anything other than a positive opinion of the man, and by extension, his policies.

And while the speech seemed positive, there were many things within it that were troublesome.

For the first time I can remember, Obama talked positively and at length about small business. He accurately described our nation's entrepreneurs and workers as the solution to the current crisis. And he's right. But then he named better health care and education as the way to fix the ills of small business. Obama's contention that the cost of health care "is one of the major reasons why small businesses close their doors and corporations ship jobs overseas" is blatantly untrue. Obama's contention that health care "is one of the largest and fastest-growing parts of our budget" is true, but the solution he's put forth is for government to double down and "invest" even more in government-run health care which will only cause the budget to increase at an even faster pace.

Government providing these services will have to be paid for with higher taxes, especially on those with higher incomes, such as the owners of small businesses. This, along with high labor costs, will reduce jobs in the American market. And while education and health care may help people who are not able to access those services for whatever reason, these programs won't do much for small business job creation, especially in the short term.

While on the topic of small business, Obama said:

First, we are creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans, and small-business loans to the consumers and entrepreneurs who keep this economy running.

Sounds good at first, but consider that government investment in Fannie and Freddy in support of loans that shouldn't have been made in the private sector has a lot to do with our current situation. So why would we create a government lending fund that offers even more loans, backed by tax payer dollars, for higher risk small businesses? Taking risks and dealing with the outcome on an individual basis is a major facet of what makes our economy great. Conversely, forcing everyone to share in those risks will eventually lead to a more risk averse culture, and thus a lesser economy and country in the long run. Can't we just focus on fixing the lending problem in the private sector?

In the context of America's economic recovery, Obama brought up the topic of energy. I supported McCain's "All of the above" approach, and agree with investment in alternative energies. That said, a very smart friend of mine suggested that if there really were a viable alternative energy option, private capital would already be fully invested, in order to reap the massive rewards that would come along with such an advancement. Considering the massive amount of private money that has gone into things like consumer space travel, it's clear my friend is both smart, and right. It's the American way.

Perhaps President Obama is correct that it will take a massive government effort on the same level as our voyage to the moon to achieve truly renewable and profitable energy. And if his gamble were to pay off, then the world might experience a period of near utopia. However, "Gamble" is the key word in that sentence. Considering our current economic climate, does it make sense to gamble so much money on a technology that does not exist?

Predictably, Obama did not mention drilling for sources of oil within our borders or offshore. Obama did say:

So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. That's what we need.

Is it really what we need? The reality is, "Cap and Trade" represents a tax on any business that is emitting CO2. While cap and trade may make environmentalists happy, it restricts business and will actually wind up reducing jobs. The money generated by cap and trade schemes goes somewhere, usually to government, to spend on alternative energy programs or whatever else government deems worthy. In the short term, this plan will reduce jobs, and negatively impact the private sector. And as noted previously, since major investment in renewable energy is a gamble, should the money spent not pan out, then sacrifice will have been made for no gain.

Obama defended his stimulus plan by listing specific numbers of teachers or police who would have been laid off otherwise. The assertion here is that in each of these instances, nothing else could have been cut in these local governments to save the jobs of the police and teachers. That's an assertion that stretches the limits of believability. If the stimulus package consisted primarily of measures to save the jobs of police and teachers, then perhaps more Republicans would have supported it. Instead, considering that there are approximately 7 million Americans working as police or teachers in America (approximately 800,000 cops, 6.2 million teachers), we have a stimulus package so large that we could give each and every teacher and police officer $124,000.

Obama trotted out the old wives' tale of electronic medical records as the way to "reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives." I don't know what doctors you've been to recently, but I have not seen a medical office or hospital not run by computers for at least a couple of decades now. Perhaps there are still practitioners out there "filling out things in triplicate" but if so, that's their bad. The electronic medical records issue is really about reducing retests and second opinions, and giving government even more oversight into the treatment we are all getting. This may or may not reduce errors or save lives. Given how often we hear of things like our credit card numbers being stolen en masse, something tells me such a system would not ensure privacy. Investing in a massive government technology to centralize medical data won't be cheap either, and thus will not bring down costs.

On education, Obama made the following contentions:

...we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education, from the day they are born to the day they begin a career. That is a promise we have to make to the children of America.

Granted, education is important. But is access really the issue? Or is the real problem the quality of our teaching process, and the fact that teachers stay in their positions regardless of the job they do? Obama touched upon this point, but not satisfactorily. Recent history teaches us that throwing more money at our public schools is not the solution, yet that is exactly what Obama is proposing:

Already, we've made a historic investment in education through the economic recovery plan. We've dramatically expanded early childhood education and will continue to improve its quality, because we know that the most formative learning comes in those first years of life.

Formative learning does happen in a child's early years, but should that formative learning happen in school? The Wall Street Journal wrote an article about how Finnish teens have been found to be the smartest in the world, and these kids don't start school till they are age seven, and get little homework in high school. There is no evidence whatsoever that sending toddlers or infants to public school improves anything. The constant drumbeat by the teachers union that children be enrolled sooner and attend longer classes has to do with creating more teacher jobs and greater government control of the programming of our young. A scary thought, when you consider the effect education has had on our populace in the last 20 or so years. Knowledge of capitalism and freedom and the great history of America has dipped to all-time lows. Most children coming out of high school know much more about Facebook than our Constitution. Even more funding for even more of the same isn't the solution.

President Obama made the following comment which was curious to say the least:

Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come, and we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.

First, comprehensive Medicare reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare, but I'm not sure reforming the entire health system would strengthen anything but our deficit. And on the point of universal savings accounts, don't we already have 401ks? Didn't Bush suggest such an idea and wasn't he roundly rejected by all Democrats? I guess the Dems needed to hear this from someone who doesn't have a Texas accent.

Obama elicited a few jeers during the speech. He once again suggested that he inherited the current deficit, when in fact he ran for several years, and at the cost of nearly a billion dollars, for the honor to do the job. He once again suggested that the stimulus plan was free of earmarks -- a statement that is true only in a courtroom.

Also interesting was the "distinguished Americans" part of the address, where the president mentions the accomplishments of select people in the audience. The great American Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger was in attendance, but was not mentioned by the President for taking responsibility for the 150-plus people on his plane; ensuring that they got home to their loved ones safely. Instead, President Obama focused on a man who gave his hard-earned $60 million dollar bonus to his friends and co-workers, and a young lady who wrote the government a letter asking for more funds for her school. The message was clear: our new president celebrates those who give hand outs, or ask for hand outs. Not my definition of distinguished. Or of the American way.

President Obama is a smart politician and he proved that once again last night. What he failed to prove however, is that his policies are equally as smart.

I was watching a commercial on TV, where this poor veteran who had served this great country honorably in war, is forced to thank the "people of Venezuela" for oil handouts courtesy of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's empty largess, by way of Joe Kennedy's vanity, or rather his Citizen's Energy program. And it got me thinking, just what was President Obama's response to President Hugo Chavez's so called election abolishing term limits? This was an election which basically removed any pretense of a democracy in Venezuela, as if that were really a question anyway. It turns out, Obama's state department didn't really have a problem with it.

Democracy in Venezuela is now officially over, and the American President's bully pulpit is precisely the place to weigh in. American presidents have had a long history of speaking out in the name of freedom, as demonstrated by Kennedy and Reagan, not to mention President Lincoln whom the press has recently been fond of likening to President Obama. But apparently such a comparison isn't justified. Some try and defend the administration's (lack of) response as a smart, stealth strategy focusing on energy independence and I can agree that this should be part of our answer. But for the Venezuelan people who have had their assets nationalized, their voices squelched, and have seen their overall quality of life plunge at the hands of this wannabe dictator, perhaps they were expecting a bit more hope and leadership from America than, of all things, praising Venezuela's "civic spirit."

Elsewhere in the world, freedom took another step back. During her first trip to China, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about pressuring the Chinese on human rights issues and Tibet. Mrs. Clinton said, "Our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis." On the economy and fighting terrorism, sure. But the "global climate change crisis" is more important than human rights? Really Hillary?

On Friday, CNN aired a video of President Obama saying:

"If a federal agency proposes a project that will waste that money, I will not hesitate to call them out on it, and put a stop to it. But I want everyone here to be on notice that if a local government does the same, I will call them out on it as well, and use the full power of my office and our administration to stop it."

I don't remember the president calling anyone in congress out on the wasteful spending that was put in the stimulus. Not a peep about condoms, or a gripe about sod on the National Mall. Obama actually defended pork as stimulus. Obama's definition of "wasteful spending" is arbitrary at best. The real message in President Obama's statement is: Spend the money the way Obama wants, or you will be crucified from the President's bully pulpit and in the press. Not a good recipe for re-election, putting local politicians between an untenable rock and a hard place in serving their constituents.