What Does It Mean to Be "Poor" or "Broke?"

In the past week, this discussion has come up over and over.  Spurred on by the dueling poverty stories of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (in the last 15 years, not their childhood), many are taking a closer look at what people mean when they say "poor" or "broke."

In a related and strange statement, the former president's daughter blissfully confessed that she cared little for money.  Of course Chelsea Clinton makes $600,000 per year doing half the work of unpaid or low paid interns.  One does not need to care for money when the nest is permanently and opulently feathered.

Even the federal student loan people got in trouble for a tweet that seemed to minimize poverty. But what is it?

The federal government has a one size fits all measure of poverty.  It considers a family of four impoverished if it makes a little over $23,000 per year or less in every state outside of Alaska and Hawaii.  Cost of living, however, varies widely.  Earnings of $14,000 in West Virginia's most affluent area, Berkeley County, equals nearly $23,000 in Hartford, Connecticut, according to an online CNN Money cost of living adjuster.  Simply put, a dollar goes much farther in West Virginia than in Connecticut for a variety of reasons.

This shows that one cannot put a simple number on poverty, but doesn't explain what poverty actually is, or feels like.

Hillary Clinton described what many Americans occasionally experience regardless of income.  Her family's lifestyle ran their finances briefly into debt.  On one hand, they struggled with mortgages, tuition, and other financial commitments.  Fair enough, until you hear that these were multiple mortgages on multiple mansions.  They did not owe tuition to local state college, but to one of the most costly educational institutions in the world.

Paying bills when revenue dips causes stress and anxiety.  Having to sell a house to pay for bills could cause social embarrassment in their set.  The public, however, rightfully laughed at the Clintons' protestations of poverty.

The Census Bureau reported a few years ago that 30 million, or just under 10 percent, of Americans live in poverty.  They base this on income statistics instead of investigating actual conditions.  If being poor is defined as simply not making a lot of money, then the case gets rested.  Americans, however, assign a more stringent definition to the term poverty.

To most, poverty means real deprivation.  Does a family lack shelter?  Can they not pay for basic utilities? Do they not eat properly because of a lack of resources?  In most cases, the family may not be financially comfortable or secure, but they do eat consistently, they do have shelter, and they not only pay for utilities, but also vehicles (plural), cell phones,  and cable or satellite TV.

Submitted for your approval: if one regularly pays for satellite TV, alcohol, cigarettes, internet, and/or cell phones, one may not call oneself "poor."  If a family is starving and has all these things, it is not poor, but in sore need of re prioritizing.

Some institutions have a vested interest in inflating the poverty number.  More poverty means more money for the poor but also, more importantly, for bureaucrats and non profits that supposedly handle programs to help them. Examining true poverty does not help them expand their agencies, much less solve the real problems.

The more time spent on servicing the financially insecure as if they were poor, the more likely that the truly poor will escape notice.

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton's foray into the verbal forest (and we should not forget that Bill actually did know real poverty as a child) is great for poking fun.  It should, however, lead the country to discuss what poverty really is and examine the policies intended to address it.

Obama, Dick, and Andy: "I Wanna Talk About Me"

About a year ago, Barack Obama caused a personal pronoun stir when CNSNews.com reported that he used the first person pronouns "I" and "me" a combined total of 117 times in a single speech.  But, however, Obama is far from alone in "wanting to talk about me."

About a year and six weeks before the oft reported July 2012 speech, blogger Marc Cenedella reported an analysis of Obama speeches given at CIA headquarters compared with several of his predecessors.  Since 1968, Presidents Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush referred to themselves the least often.  George H. W. Bush gets a pass for a slightly higher level because he once was CIA chief, which would lead to more first person mentions.

By far, the three highest levels of use came from Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.  Clinton's high use shrinks when Cenedella factors in the length of the addresses.  The famously loquacious Clinton drops down to Bushian levels of first person pronoun use while Obama and Nixon remain higher than the rest.

In his 1960 work Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction, famed American historian Eric McKitrick examined another president persistent in his employment of first person pronouns.

About Johnson, he wrote :

For a public man, he was obsessed with himself to a degree that exceeded the normal, and most of his speeches, no matter what else they dealt with, may be read as demands for personal vindication and personal approval.

McKitrick also concluded that Johnson preferred general rules to concrete thinking "in order that (his mind) might once more close itself and be at rest."

Johnson, at his worst, often evoked images of crucifixion and Judah Iscariot-like betrayal in reference to himself and his enemies.  This worked in the East Tennessee hills where the poor felt just as nailed to a cross by their betters as he did.  But it fell short of the expectations that the national public had for the demeanor of their president.

McKitrick compared the inferiority complex of Johnson to the confidence of Lincoln.  About the 16th president, he said his "'humility' was sustained by the odd arrogance of a superior man's self-knowledge."  Interestingly, this also describes President Reagan and both chief executives of the Bush family.

Nixon's public speaking patterns mimicked McKitrick's evaluation of Johnson, especially early.  Journalist Theodore White remembered almost a decade later that in 1960, Nixon's "common utterances all too frequently a mixture of pathetic self-pity and petulant distemper."  Aide Robert Finch told White in 1968 that Nixon" doesn't want to be loved.  He's not looking for adulation the way he used to."  But that campaign evaluation looks more like Nixon covering than transforming his nature.

The three presidents all share in common some attributes.  All three worked to expand the authority of the executive branch.  None of them could work and play well with anyone except their closest trusted associates. All three had fatal flaws that kept them from functioning comfortably in the role chosen for them by the public.  Nixon enjoyed the most success, but of course unraveled his legacy by covering criminal activities.  Obama and Nixon both preferred layers of secrecy to public examination of their administration's doings.  Conversely, Johnson was perhaps too open about his exact feelings for proposals and personalities.

Of the three, Johnson was far and away the best speaker.  He could address a crowd extemporaneously for hours.  Sure, the crowds sometimes despised him after his efforts, but Johnson could never leave an audience cold.  Obama reads well from a teleprompter, but may be one of the worst presidential speakers if the ability to speak and respond without notes is factored.

Will Obama's presidency end in scandal and/or disgrace as Johnson and Nixon's did?  It certainly has achieved no success that has been of any value to the people. And history's remembrance of Johnson certainly has found echoes in Obama.

History will illuminate more of Obama as years and decades pass, but he has shown enough over the past several years that some conclusions are inescapable.

The most important of these is that Obama has been consistently a much smaller man than the American presidency demands.

Pattern of Tyranny: Hugo Chavez, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Bill Clinton

What do each of those individuals have in common? Each of them over the past several years has been associated with term limits abolition for presidents.

Hugo Chavez already has the coveted "president for life" job. Argentinian President Fernandez de Kirchner this week seemed to float a trial balloon in her country about amending their "outdated" constitution. Bill Clinton suggested that the term limit amendment be lifted in this country recently.

The executive branch has an advantage over the legislative in this key area. At the most, every eight years, the executive gets swept clean of its political officers. Even presidents from the same party tend to want to have their own people, avoiding the messes caused when John Adams and Harry Truman held over officials. Turnover in office reduces the amount of corruption that can settle in.

Congress operates without term limits. Invariably, human nature takes over when a person in power gets comfortable. They cut corners, ignore rules here and there, and probably are as surprised as anyone else if they end up scandalized.

President Washington feared more than most the concept of "president for life." He saw it as upsetting the balance established between the branches of government, leading to the establishment of what Madison called "the tyranny of the majority." The president has the most to gain by somehow purchasing or otherwise appeasing the majority at the expense of the minority. And the majority rarely see infringements upon their rights.

Presidential term limits are necessary for the continuance of good government. Congress should consider them as well.

A Crisis of Confidence

The United States and key players in the world community have a crisis of confidence. Not in America itself, but in Barack Obama.

The past two weeks have shown us just how much the sitting president is in over his head. He has been seen most conspicuously playing golf, predicting the NCAA Men's Tournament, and going to Rio de Janiero to dance and see the sights. Meanwhile Japan is still reeling from natural and nuclear disaster, Egypt is still in an uproar, and we have just launched air strikes against Libya in coordination with our NATO allies. Well, semi-coordinatiion because we are arguing publicly with Britain over whether or not Moammar Ghaddafi is a legitimate target for removal. And his own party is screaming because Congress received not so much as a courtesy call about the attacks.

Obama does not have the ability to lead a church bingo game, much less the country in a world of crisis. So why doesn't he hand things off to Hillary Clinton? She may have wrong headed ideas about a lot of things, but she is more capable and experienced than the basketball prognosticator in chief. Obama would never be able to handle any form of Clinton accomplishment because she remains the number one threat to his renomination.

Hillary Clinton herself posed the question. Who would you rather have answering the phone at 3 AM with the world in crisis. I wish Obama would stay in Rio, or on the golf course, or wherever he'd rather be this week than working his main job, and let Clinton answer the phone. She and Bill are not my top choices to respond in a crisis, but they are better than anyone else the Democrats have right now.

Who ever thought that this guy was a great intellect was sold a bill of goods. Sorry America. You've been had.

"Hand to hand combat" Promised By Obama After Election

Obama and his spokesmen had two interesting statements this week connected to the midterm elections.

First came the news that he will leave on November 5 instead of the 7th on a trip to India. Interesting idea, drive your party to defeat and then leave the country. I wonder if he will get any golf in over there?

Next came something more ominous. Obama promised "hand to hand combat" with Republicans after they make gains this November. Look for Congress to defund and box off his health care initiative and work to limit the reach of the EPA. Obama's reaction is interesting since his ideas and policies resulted in the congressional defeats. This year is a referendum on his left wing ideology and Americans are clearly not buying it. What is interesting is that Joe Biden said he would "strangle" Republicans who opposed their debt ridden budget proposals.

So the president and vice president are figuratively using the language of murder to describe their frustration with the GOP, the Tea Party, and the electorate for rejecting leftism. Of course they won't be literally killing Republicans, but their language reflects their frustration.

In 1995 when the GOP took over Congress, they skirmished with Clinton, but also hammered out welfare reform. In 2007, you saw Bush retrench and try to find ways to work with Congress (although this led to some negative outcomes). I seriously do not see Obama working with congressional Republicans in the remaining two years of his term. Like Andrew Johnson, he will more likely go off the deep end and become a bizarre spectacle, shunned by both parties.

Look for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination in 2012. Just my gut feeling.

Looking Ahead to 2012, Potential Contenders For the Democratic Presidential Nomination

This might take some folks a little off guard. Contenders for the Democratic noination for president? Don't they have an incumbent?

Obama said recently that he would rather be a good one term president than a mediocre two termer. This reflects a rare moment of reality for the embattled president who at one point told a Blue Dog Democrat expressing fears about this November that the difference between 1994 (when Republicans swept into control of Congress) and 2010 is that "now you have me." He forgot that he has not accomplished anything thus far that would define him as a "good" president. This remark may have been a shot at both of his predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton (whom he personally seems to despise and vice versa.)

If events continue as they have, Democrats will start mulling a run at the nomination. They will each try to present themselves as the anti-Obama, perhaps event to the extent of looking a little less polished if it leads to the impression of greater substance.

First and foremost, the best Democratic alternative to four more years of Nobama is the sitting secretary of state. Under George W. Bush this was the most honored office in his Cabinet. Condoleeza Rice has tremendous power and latitude. Hillary Clinton goes to town hall meetings in the Congo and begs money off of the Chinese while others handle major affairs separately. This has to grate on her. I would not be surprised to see Clinton resign in the next six to nine months. This would signal to the world that the Democratic nomination is up for grabs. Then it would be the battle of the Chicago Obama organization versus the Clintonistas. The difference between the two is that the Clintons have actually accomplished things.

How about a prominent Democratic governor? The fact is that in this group Joe Manchin has as much credibility as anyone. He has managed to maintain a stable face on state finances while other governments have gotten into trouble. Some may remember his exposure during the Sago mine disaster. Manchin looks, sounds, and acts more like the Clinton prototype than Obama, a fact that could win him credit with Clintonistas if their own hero passes.

The fact is that Obama is weak and stubbornly refuses to adapt his tone, policies, or actions. This adds up to a strong challenge in 2012 from his own party.

Act of War?

Two American journalists recently captured and freed by North Korea claim that a guide led them across the river briefly from China into North Korea. Once they realized their mistake, they returned to China but were "violently dragged" back to North Korea by soldiers and imprisoned.

Technically two nations should howl in outrage at this behavior. The United States should immediately shut down any communications between the two governments and disavow any positive statements made by former President Bill Clinton. The freeze ought to be palpable and immediate. A gangster government responded to Obama's Apology Tour by kidnapping US citizen journalists and extorting favorable treatment from our country.

China should punish this small, but real incursion into this territory by North Korean soldiers through economic sanctions or military action. I have more faith in China's ability to focus its wrath on this outcast regime than I do in Obama. Likely, this matter will go under the rug. China will fins a way to quietly punish while the US may protest, if that, and let matters lie.


The lack of American reaction will embolden terrorists again, just as our demonstrations of weakness in the past provoked 9/11.

More Evidence That the Wheels Are Falling Off the Obama Administration

Remember Bush era foreign policy? In his second term, he sent the calm, collected, and brilliant Dr. Condoleeza Rice to wage diplomacy. She took the point on every major diplomatic situation and performed adeptly despite a wide range of thorny problems.

Now who represents America? Diplomatic czars? Joe Biden? Obama? A former NBA All Star?Former President Clinton? The world is beginning to wonder as it finally grasps the slipshod international presence of America under Obama.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton certainly does not. Recently she snapped at a Congolese university student as if he had come to talk to her about health care deform. He had a reasonable question about international finance and asked her what her husband and Dikembe Mutombo's opinions were on it. Clinton responded "Wait. You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state; I am. So you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I'm not going to be channeling my husband."

Brilliant diplomacy from a former radical left winger. Isn't the left the movement that claims that all points of view and perspectives, even from the Third World, have merit? This was obviously the question of a young man from a patriarchical society where men's opinions carry more weight.

It was not a tactful question, but tact is not the job of a college student. Hillary Clinton's irritated response spoke volumes about her miniscule role in diplomacy and her frustration. She could have passed it off humorously and kept the upper hand. Instead she revealed some of her rather justifiable anger. That rage should be kept away from diplomatic photo ops with NBA players and Africans.

The question also revealed the fact that Hillary Clinton has very little role or respect in US diplomacy. Obama has adeptly humbled his former rival, but will it end up hurting him in the long run if she decides to break free of this impossible situation?

Bill Clinton Picks Up Two Women in North Korea

Former President Bill Clinton traveled to North Korea to secure the release of two journalists. Those journalists work for Clintons former Vice President Al Gore’s Current TV network. They had been taken captive by North Korean and held as spies.

It is great that their release was secured as the charges against them were bogus at best. This was nothing more than a political ploy by the North Korean’s to gain legitimacy on the world stage. Having a former US President visit North Korea they were handed that legitimacy. This was another foreign policy mistake by the Obama administration.

This could have been handled better. The person that should have gone was former Vice President Al Gore. This should have appeased the North Korean’s somewhat, but at the same time given deniability to the Obama administration. Al Gore is their boss and he would have been simply negotiating the release of his employees and not legitimizing the rouge regime in North Korea.

The missteps and soft handedness of the Obama administration dealing with dictators that routinely kill their own people shows the administrations naivety. Obama must take a hard line with evil in the world. He should follow in the footsteps of Winston Churchill and step out of the shoes of Neville Chamberlain.

Jeb Bush Is Right

Don't get me wrong. I do cherish and respect what President Reagan did for our party and our country. His ideas and his efforts gave America twenty-five years of prosperity. Had Clinton followed his foreign policy example, we may have seen a much more secure America as well.

It's time to move on. It really is.

I am not saying we should forget Ronald Reagan. We never forgot Abraham Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower. We should do a lot more to remember William McKinley who was a stronger supporter of free markets than the more flamboyant Theodore Roosevelt. However he belongs to history now.

People my age and older will have a hard time with this. We lived through the 1970s and remember the misery. Ronald Reagan raised us from all of that and restored our country's position in the world. But we must remember that millions of voters were not even alive when he was president. To them, he is as unreachable as Lincoln, a picture in a history book instead of a living example. If we continue to venerate Reagan, we risk looking like the old Franklin Roosevelt stalwarts of the not too distant past. Who in West Virginia even in the 80s and 90s did not know at least one person who voted the straight Democratic ticket because of FDR?

The Republican Party must start searching for the next Reagan because America will need some renewing in 2012. Obama has deconstructed much of our economic and diplomatic position in a shockingly short amount of time. Who will be the Republican to inspire this generation? Where will the ideas that wil shape the 21st Century come from? Hopefully we see one emerge soon.

Do not forget the past, but do not let the past blind us to the present or the future.

****************************************************************************

Remember when we said on this blog that Ford Motor Company will not only be fine, but end up in a strong position when this economy shakes out?

Ford just leapt over Toyota to once again seize second place in US auto sales last month. Ford's new midsized Fusion is a hit with consumers and recreates the success enjoyed by that company in the 1990s with the unspectacular, but dependable Taurus.

General (soon to be renamed "Government?") Motors is still the nation's best selling company, but they and Toyota both lost market share to the aggressive and still completely private sector Ford Motor Company.

To be honest I still think GM should be split into two if not three parts. Chevrolet and Cadillac would probably prosper alone.

Kudos to Ford!

Where Is the Leadership?

Throughout our nation's short history, we generally see crisis produce leadership. Either the man or woman on the spot rises to the occasion or someone emerges unexpectedly.

We see neither happening at least to this point.

Obama, let's pity him a second, started his campaign during rosy good times. The fallout from Clinton era policies on mortgages had not yet reared its ugly head. He figured he could become president based upon disenchantment with Iraq, surrender in that war, and live happily ever after.

The Democrats goofed by backing and nominating him. His shotgun, yet vapid approach to any and all problems mystifies even liberals. Obama does everything the Left expects in a leader. He speaks well, lowers himself to levels presidents normally do not stoop into, and he backs watered down Marxist ideals. He does all of this with a mind boggling incompetence. The latest gaffe was writing a letter to the French president. That in itself is not bad. Calling him by his predecessor's name is. He may remember that the next time someone addresses him as "President Bush." As if anyone could mistake this guy for Bush.

Republicans have done little better. Who represents us? I had, and still have, a lot of hope for Michael Steele. However he has strumbled out of the gate himself. Luckily running a political party does not have as high stakes as running a nation. Mitt Romney is hanging back, not wanting to campaign three years too early as Giuliani and Hillary Clinton did.

Newt Gingrich has stepped into the limelight a little more often recently. Should hard times continue, Gingrich may set himself up as the perfect candidate to oppose Obama. He has intellect, experience, and substance. Additionally he has a powerful and confrontational style that will seem refreshing after four years of Obama droning on and on in his faux statesmanlike voice. I also expect that Gingrich will continue to not require a teleprompter. However he has not yet grasped at the chance to lead.

For all of the gloom and doom forecasting about the GOP though, it is not time to panic. Leadership will emerge in the next couple of years. It also does not appear that this president will cease screwing up any time soon. Opposition to Marxism combined with strong articulation of party beliefs should restore the vitality to the GOP.

Who Dares to Question the Great and Powerful One?

Liberals, that is who.

Liberals have grown increasingly critical of Obama and he has not even assumed the presidency yet. He selected the Clinton Administration for his Cabinet and stacked the Executive Branch with Harvard grads. Charitable critics compared it to John F. Kennedy's administration, which was surprisingly described as blundering. I thought John F. Kennedy was the man chosen to lead us to Zion until his untimely death. Now he is blundering. Maybe because he advocated tax cuts and higher defense spending to confront enemies.

Obama has shown thus far a pragmatic streak, understanding that social engineering is bad for the economy. Ever since speaking with President Bush, he has shown a much more reasonable approach on foreign policy. Leftists are not pragmatic. It is their way or the highway and they turned against many of their own over time. We still don't know what a President Obama will be like, so we need to remain vigilant, but the more the Leftists fret, the better I feel.

Of course his deputy campaign manager promises that he will still bring peace to Iraq, end climate change, fix health care, cure cancer, walk on water, and resurrect dead pets, but this statement had a curious tiredness and surrealistic quality to it. The idea that a president can alter the laws of God and/or nature is awfully stupid on the surface. But he is The One after all.

I still would not be surprised if, behind the curtain sits Hillary Clinton pulling the levers and speaking into the microphone. Hopefully the GOP won't act like a cowardly lion over the next four years.

William Seward and Hillary Clinton

Remember when there was a prohibitive favorite for the party nomination who breezed into the primary season thinking they had it and the presidency in the bag. Then from out of nowhere came this guy from Illinois who changed history at the last minute. Then he graciously appointed his former rival as Secretary of State.

I remember that situation. It was Abraham Lincoln and William Seward.

When Lincoln assumed office, Seward assumed he was the real president. He compared himself to a Prime Minister or a power behind the throne. Seward had the experience and the connections while Lincoln was a nobody from Illinois. When Seward started making deals behind Lincoln's back, the president called him to the carpet in private.

Lincoln used a folksy down home style to mask a precise legal mind and a sometimes ruthless mentality. Opponents and even friends underestimated him because of the is purposeful front he built. Dwight D. Eisenhower operated in the same manner and people fell for his facade as well.

The question here is, when Hillary asserts herself how will Obama respond? And how many friends does he have? He has surrounded himself with Clintonites as opposed to bringing in new blood. A liberal friend asked me the other day who else I expected him to choose since the Democrats have so little government experience. (Duh! This is why we voted for John McCain!)My response was that in domestic policy, certainly there are some governors, big city mayors, or former congressmen that could be helpful. Honestly how do you claim to be for change, then appoint virtually the entire Clinton Administration?

I am sure that more than a few Obama supporters have quietly asked teh same questions.

This means Hillary has more friends than Barack and Bill is still out there playing the free agent. A situation such as this could turn decisively ugly if not handled correctly. Let us hope it does not endanger the nation in the process.

Leon Podesta is Change?

I don't know whether it is disturbing or somewhat comforting that Barack Obama has gone down the political highway looking to pick up a bunch of Clinton retreads for his advising team and Cabinet. The Clinton presidency had a few saving graces which included political pragmatism. They understood that the United States has a center-right orientation and made some gestures in the direction of welfare reform and balanced budgets.

What it does show is that the neophyte feels like a neophyte beneath his messianic bluster. There is some humility beneath that exterior. Then again it could be a peace offering after a primary that proved more harsh than the general election.

The worst part about this development is that it puts America back in the hands of the touchy feely set that is more concerned with how people, institutions, and nations feel than with the protection of our interests. The best part is that these were people who had very little vision or direction in the 1990s. No vision is better than a misguided one.

Interesting Military Statistics

Thanks to Anne Palmer who sent me a link to a report recently put out by the Federation of American Scientists. This is a non partisan group that often publishes on the internet some fascinating material on the militaries of the world, among other topics.

Some of the numbers that one sees are very interesting. In the three year span that opened the Clinton Administration, 3,328 American service personnel lost their lives. These represented the worst three years of losses during his presidency. Incidentally, this was the high tide of post Cold War budget cutting as well. The highest three years of US military casualties during the George W. Bush Administration in this report (which only extends to 2006) number 5,489. So yes the Bush administration's number is higher; however we must remember that we were fighting a tenacious enemy on two separate fronts in the Bush years.

Amazingly in the top three years of accident related deaths, the Clinton Administration's worst three years totalled 1,714 while Bush's presidency saw 1,825. In time of war, one would expect higher levels of stress and long term deployments to lead to more accidents. They have, but not by a substantially higher number. The figures for self-inflicted incidents are eye opening as well. The media has continually reminded us that our forces are in a seriously strained condition. Undoubtedly the horrors of war do take their toll on each man or woman exposed to them. However, the top three years of self-inflicted incidents during Clinton's term total 718 while Bush's top three years in the study were 579. Almost 150 fewer than in Clinton's first three years of office.

These numbers do not say anything personally about Bill Clinton; however since Democrats including his wife have continually bashed the military's performance at war under Bush, it is worthwhile to listen to what they tell us. Under George W. Bush the military has shown itself to be at a peak of efficiency and effectiveness. This is the result of the pride shown by each serviceman and the leadership demonstrated by officers as well as the determination to see the job finished correctly and effectively.

The report can be read in its entirety at the link below.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

********************************************************************

Every day we see Barack Obama shoot himself in the foot. Now he needs to explain why tapping into the strategic oil reserve is a good method to lower gas prices and alleviate suffering now, but tapping into the massive pools off our coastlines and under ANWAR will do no good for decades. Simply put, Obama has figured out that he must deal with John McCain's arguments of substance in some fashion.

The Brilliance of President George W. Bush

It's not fashionable to say it, even amongst the conservatives who voted for him. The truth is inescapable, though. When it comes to foreign policy and bolstering American credibility in the world, President Bush and his administration have performed brilliantly.

After eight years of mollycoddling by Bill Clinton, President Bush's unabashedly aggressive policies worked like a bucket of ice water on a soundly sleeping child. Europe especially had to wake up and recognize the new sheriff in town. President Bush after 9/11 then named the three most wanted malefactors against world peace. His "Axis of Evil" address offended the sensibilities of liberals and professional diplomats in the same manner as President Reagan's "Evil Empire" analogy. In the long run, this kind of labeling when applied to rogue regimes is difficult to shake.

President Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated American resolve. Bill Clinton issued threats just as when the National Weather Service issues a thunderstorm threat. It may or may not come. President Bush along the same line issued warnings; in other words the storm is coming.

The world got used to an America ready to defend the interests of real peace and it responded. Anti-American governments fell in nations such as Germany and France despite the fact that the world press labeled the people as literally hating the United States. Perhaps they understand better than academics and the press who the real threat is. Meanwhile some states such as Libya abandoned their previous policies of seeking WMDs and supporting terror. Palestinian terror has dropped significantly since its major benefactor Saddam Hussein was expelled from power. Vietnam sought a partnership with the US against Islamic terror.

Dominoes continue to fall. Europe backed out of any support of Iran as its frightened president turned up the rhetorical heat. North Korea negotiated its way out of the Axis of Evil by succumbing to regional pressure led by the US. Now Iran stands virtually alone, even Chavez has not been his usual boisterous self lately. All this has happened quietly without a lot of saber rattling by the US. Once we proved that we would act, the rest of the world friend or foe knows they can count on American resolve.

Had Congress listened to the president's wishes domestically, our position would be even stronger. Imagine if we had followed President Bush's wishes from his first months in office when he warned us about upcoming energy shortages. We could be almost self-sufficient if we would only tap our own sources. His only flaw has been his inability to sell his policies in the same manner as Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. This reflects a businesslike mentality in the White House, but the result has been an electorate easily convinced by emotional appeals from his opponents.

At the end of the day, the Bush foreign policy has worked miraculous change. Europe stands with an aggressive United States. Even moderate anti-war activists have to accept the fact that the United States has almost succeeded in Iraq. Iran stands alone without support from any of its previous benefactors. Japan, Britain, and Australia stand with us as firmly as ever.

Hats off to President George W. Bush, a president who was not afraid to act and who has given the world real solutions rather than band aids.