A Gingrich Role, the Ruin of Sarah Palin, and Approve the F 35 Already!

Conservatives love Herman Cain. He is a businessman, answers questions in regular talk and not politicianese. So why so little support for a guy who seems to have been preparing to be president at this point in history for much of his adult life?

Gingrich will probably not be nominated. But he is definitely a potential consigliere for anyone elected who may not bring a lot of experience to the job.

Is Bill Clinton prepping the country and the Democratic Party for another Hillary run? His criticism of Obama lately has been palpable. Sounds like he is almost begging someone to call for her to be a candidate.

The media has won. They have effectively destroyed Sarah Palin as a serious presidential contender. Not because she was dishonest in office, not because she is a criminal, but because she dared to be a pretty, successful, conservative woman from Middle America. Media figures have figuratively ravished her family, not even sparing her disabled son. Her name, without cause, has been tarnished and her ideas ignored. Shame is too minor a word for what they should feel.

Would you rely on a 22 year old car with hundreds of thousands of miles on the odometer to keep you safe on a long trip? Would you bet your life on it? That is what we do with our aging fighter fleet. It is time to start production on the F 35

Earl Ray Tomblin Needs To Explain This Immediately

Earl Ray Tomblin wants to be governor, but he needs to explain or clarify some remarks that he wrote several years ago.

Tomblin wrote the foreword to the book West Virginia Tough Boys: Vote Buying, Fist Fighting, and a President Named JFK. The book, written by F. Keith Davis, details the career of several Southern West Virginia Democratic bosses, including Raymond Chafin. One scene in the book, originally described in Chafin's own autobiography, and later by former Gaston Caperton official Dr. Allen Loughry in his own book, portrays a $35,000 payoff from the Kennedy campaign. That money was meant to secure support of the bosses away from Humphreys. One of the bosses, Bus Perry, feared at the time that this act would put him back into state prison. Dr. Loughry, in Don't Buy Another Vote, I Won't Pay For a Landslide claims that the 1960 campaign started the era of big money political corruption in West Virginia.

Well, what does Tomblin say about this? Does he condemn the fixing of a presidential primary in the strongest possible terms? Does he call their actions disreputable and criminal, as Loughry does?

This is the response of the man who would be governor:

"As we reflect on our role in U. S. Presidential History and our own unique historical perspective, some might have legitimate reason to question the means, but no one can question the positive and outstanding contribution West Virginia has made in this venue of government and political development."

This was his one negative comment about the crimes detailed in this book. To him, this seems to be a matter of interpretation. Tomblin also seems to imply that the end of a Kennedy victory over Hubert Humphreys was worth subverting an honest vote. This shows an amazing lack of concern for democratic process and rule of law. So long as you get something good, it's O. K. to commit a slew of crimes to make it happen. And what of West Virginia's role? This travesty helped to cement our reputation for generations as a Hazzard County-like place where politics is shaped in back rooms with a wink, a nod, and an exchange of cash. Tomblin's foreward doesn't celebrate just one Boss Hogg, but a whole gaggle of them.

The man who would be governor needs to address this issue immediately. Perhaps he did not write this little piece with enough thought, or maybe he did not want to offend his friends and neighbors. In any event, West Virginia voters need to know where he stands on election corruption in the past, present, and future. If this foreword is any indication of where he truly stands, Tomblin cannot be trusted even with the office he has held for so long, much less that of governor.

This is not a hit piece. Lord knows that I have written enough over the years that if I ran for major office, my opponents would definitely ask me to defend some of the blogs and columns the I have produced over the years. Writings are a window into the mind of the author. Voters have grown aware of this passage in the past few weeks and have started talking all over the state. Tomblin should take the opportunity to explain why he wrote in this fashion and to clarify his position on the history of Southern West Virginia political fraud and corruption.

Larry Puccio Does Not Want to Go Down the "Big Money" Road

According to "Followthemoney.org" in 2010:

Trade unions were the second largest contributors to state candidates besides self-financing. They contributed $867,000. After them came public sector unions and lawyers' associations. Only after them came business contributors, whose contributions are often divided. The West Virginia Coal Association contributed a little over $40,000.

The top six contributors to state candidates, except for individual candidates, were labor and one lawyers' group.

Mr. Puccio. Are you sure that you want to bring up big money in West Virginia elections?

The Democrats' Missed Opportunity

Remember 2009? When stimulus was supposed to save us all? When we believed that it was all going to "shovel ready projects, and not ACORN? Looking back, the Democratic Party had in its grasp the possibility of ensuring popularity and success for years to come. And the screwed it up (thankfully!)

I am not saying that the stimulus would have successfully turned around the economy. It would not have done that any more than the New Deal helped in the 1930s. But people in the 1930s could actually see work and effort going on around them. Franklin Roosevelt and his economic team, for all their lack of understanding, or even belief, in prosperity, understood that actual work that actually improved communities had to be done.

Imagine if Obama and Congress had taken half of what they spent and used it on actual infrastructure projects? What if they built a new water plant for Keyser and a new sewage plant for Westernport? What if they worked on roads, bridges, existing schools, sidewalks, and the like? What if they went into towns with century old sewer systems and rebuilt them? What if they emphasized long neglected rural development instead of dumping money into Obama's base and the federal bureaucracy?

The Democrats would have made substantial inroads into Republican country. Rural folks are grateful for recognition and help. They will vote for you if you deliver something helpful even if they do not share your ideology. Obama and his brand of Democratic Party never had any connection with Middle America. If they listened, they would know, but they barely speak our language, much less understand us. Obama approached the recession/depression with the idea of reforming America to fit his radical agenda. If he had just helped to rebuild it, without the radical leftism, thank you very much, he would have done a lot more good.

The Death of Eastern Football

It's pretty much a done deal and in many ways the future looks bright for West Virginia athletics. The SEC is the king of football, just as the Big East was in basketball. What Bobby Huggins did to take West Virginia to the top echelon in that league can be mirrored by Dana Holgerson in football. If he is successful, this could mean that he remains here for a long time instead of looking for greener pastures as his teams do better and better. But we have lost something important along the way. Eastern football.

A long, long time ago, and not in a galaxy far away, and not when the music made me smile, Eastern football challenged the South and Midwest for supremacy among the college regions. Penn State, Syracuse, Pitt, and, sometimes, West Virginia made a lot of noise in the college football world. Eastern football gave us Joe Paterno, Jim Brown, Doug Flutie, Major Harris, and countless players and memories that resonate nationally.

Back then, eastern colleges played as independents. Penn State tried to organize an eastern conference, but could not get everyone to play along. Finally, in frustration, they accepted an invitation to join the Big Ten. This move started the slow seismic changes that erupted in the college football landscape and led us here.

As it turns out, the Big East conference only represented a temporary reprieve. It was too small, too dominated by Miami. too poor, too traditionless to succeed. Had it attracted Penn State and Notre Dame, it could have rated alongside of anyone, but such moves never happened. Over the past ten years, West Virginia has carried the banner. It has remained the most consistently successful and most interesting team of the bunch.

Had the ACC thought ahead and foreseen the advent of 16 team conferences, it might have saved Eastern football by bringing in all the remaining traditional eastern teams as a unit. This would have preserved rivalries such as Boston College and West Virginia that sustained the former team. BC lost to Duke last week; how far they have fallen. This move did not happen either.

And now Eastern football divides. West Virginia (I want to emphasize likely, since nothing has been confirmed) initiated the final death by entering into unreported discussions with the SEC that prompted the quick moves of Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC. At this point, with even venerable conferences, such as the Big 12, dying, WVU found its long term position in the Big East untenable and made the best move possible. The ACC and Big Ten will pick up the usable pieces of the shattered Big East football schools while the basketball only schools likely shrink into an Atlantic 10 calibre league.

This is ugly and to be regretted, but WVU AD Oliver Luck cannot be the only one to cling to a fading tradition while everyone else moves along.

American Flags: The New Lawn Darts

Remember back in the 1980s when thousands of people worldwide succumbed to the terror of "death by lawn dart?"

Well, I don't either, but that did not stop the federal government from outlawing the toys for use by anyone, not just children. Think of the children. We have to keep them safe.

Two, not one, but (at least) two separate so-called institutions of learning have deemed American flags to be safety hazards. Conservative clubs found their requests to place flags for 9/11 commemorations denied on safety grounds. Now a New Hampshire middle school has denied an autistic student the right to carry a small flag because the rod might be a safety hazard.

I am certainly glad that educational institutions are finally waking up to the mortal dangers posed by American flags. They have killed and maimed so many students in the past, it is a wonder why they waited this long to act.

Dumb Security, Brought to You By the Left

Wednesday morning, Democratic congresswoman Lynn Wolsey (from California, of course) rose to speak. She had five minutes to speak to the Speaker Pro Tempore, some cameras, hundreds of seats, and whoever else happened to be there. She gave an impassioned speech about what she called "Smart Security."

First, she called for the removal of all troops from Afghanistan. Pretty typical anti-war stuff, really. And, honestly, since Obama won't let our troops fight and win, maybe that is an alternative. But Wolsey understands that this is a dangerous world that we cannot disengage from. So far, so good. But this IS a Leftist, so you know something crazy is coming.

She proposes that, once the troops are out, that we send in a "civilian surge" to build roads, power infrastructure, and other big ticket, demand side investments. Lyndon Johnson figured that such programs would save South Vietnam forty years ago.

But even LBJ was not naive enough to propose taking the troops away first! Wolsey has never heard of the term "soft targets." Nor does she understand that the Taliban want to kill Americans and destroy whatever we build. They would love a surge of unarmed civilians on construction projects to kidnap or just kill outright.

Wow, Congresswoman Wolsey. That's real smart.

Debating Debates

Personally, I am sick of debates.

Debates mean nothing. They are highly artificial and stylized dog and pony shows that pass for real and reasoned argument. They pander to our love of competition and the media's desire for a quick, witty, or dumb sound bite.

Debates emphasize shallowness over substance. How does a person quickly and smartly answer a question? Does this really have anything to do with a man or woman's capacity for leadership? Does it tell us anything about whether or not these people can make sound decisions at crucial times? No. So why even watch them? Why even hold them?

A better format would be to put the candidates into enclosed rooms and hand them questions. By themselves, with no assistance from staff, they should formulate their answers. Then the debate should be their defense of, and questions about, the answers from the other candidates. This encourages judgment and reason over glibness and might even give us some real insight into their principles and ideas.

Of course there will be fewer gaffes, fewer mistakes, and less overall silliness. Or maybe more, actually, because the candidates have to answer on their own without help. In any event, they would be a vast improvement over what we do now.

"I Have Serious Concerns About the Level of Spending"

This was not John Boehner, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter. This was freshman West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin's take on the proposed $450 billion in new stimulus spending. It is also bad news, because Manchin has become a bell cow for the moderate Democrats in terms of Obama proposals.

Obama proposed vast sums for infrastructure improvement, payroll tax cuts, and other measures designed to prime the economic pump. But most remain wary because he promised this before. To be honest, had he actually spent the last stimulus on the "shovel ready" jobs that he claimed it was for, that might have actually worked and benefited communities at the same time. Instead, it went to groups that supported Obama and bureaucrats.

Obama's proposals were promised serious merit by Speaker Boehner, and Obama must be prepared to see House Republicans and Senate Democrats tinker and hash over his ideas. Republicans will likely push to divert money from other areas to cover the bill as much as possible. I would not be surprised to see Postal Service relief become part of this measure at the end of the day, although that needs to come with serious changes, if not complete privatization.

Of course, Obama would not be Obama without moments of condescension, as when he lectured everyone that they had to "step their game up," whatever that means. It is not the private sector that he needs to lecture. If government would remove the weights and shackles from our private sector, particularly energy production, we could compete much more effectively in the game of commerce and manufacturing. We still wait to hear him propose total relief from the regulations that his administration is using to strangle our economy.

What Have We Lost?

Adam Smith describes the capital of a country in terms of its labor, land, structures, and productive capacity. Countries that can enhance production by necessity enhance their capital.

In the 1930s and thereafter, the federal government introduced programs to keep food prices at a certain level. Milk, orange juice, and a wide variety of other products are priced higher than they should be. One of the programs that keeps prices for the American consumer high is that which pays farmers to not produce.

The Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers rent to do nothing with their land. It costs $2 billion, at least as of 2005, and accounts for 8% of all farm subsidies. The program started as erosion control and ended up as price support.

Here is the question. How negative of an impact does this program produce? By paying farmers to not farm, we place a triple burden on the private sector. First, we use taxpayer money to prevent production and keep prices high. Second, where land is not productive, farmers do not purchase tools, fertilizer, or other agricultural necessities. They also do not employ labor. So the private sector is triply impacted by this program that harms everyone except farmers that want to live off of rent and not their own sweat. To be fair, commercial farmers face more obstacles now than ever before, including a proposed EPA regulation against dust that could wipe many out.

However, we should not be paying anyone to not work. We would be better off buying the produce and throwing it into the ocean than paying people to not work.

Could the Next Chief Executive to Take on Public Service Unions Be Obama?

Democrats gave the Wisconsin governor all the trouble he wanted last winter when he took on public sector unions. While service has remained the same, savings are up, and jobs were even preserved, unions still grumble about their reduced power. Now, the question will soon come up at the federal level.

The United States Postal Service is in crisis. Its debt soars while it faces obstacles to its desire to reduce costs. Politicians oppose cuts in service while unions have vowed to fight cuts in workforce tooth and nail. As a government business, it cannot expand into other fields. What is it to do?

Layoffs will happen. The Postal Service has substantially higher labor costs than FedEx and UPS, its main competitors and operations could completely cease in December unless something dramatic happens.

The long term answer lies in privatization. Free the postal service from its government shackles and allow competition in mail delivery. When entirely in the private sector, the Postal Service can explore other avenues of profitability that can support its task of mail delivery. It needs to find a digital enterprise to complement mail delivery and enhance customer service.

In the short term, a battle looms between the executive branch and postal worker unions. Obama has no choice but to go after the unions and reduce their power. This will end the Left's love affair with him, but would likely increase his popularity overall.

McKinley Fights EPA Coal Ash Rule

Cheap energy, at one time, was part of our competitive advantage in manufacturing. Obama promised to make energy prices go up. He definitely kept that promise.

President Obama Admits: EPA Coal Ash Rule Among Costliest Regulations

08/31/11

President Obama Admits: EPA Coal Ash Rule Among Costliest Regulations
McKinley bill will save economy billions, protect jobs

Washington, D.C. – In a response letter from President Obama to Speaker of the House John Boehner, the president acknowledged that his EPA’s proposal to regulate coal ash as a hazardous material is one of the seven most costly regulations his entire administration has proposed. According to a June 2011 Veritas economic report the president’s estimate that the coal ash rule would cost the economy up to $1.5 billion annually is grossly underestimated. The report stated that the EPA’s hazardous designation would cost up to $110 billion over 20 years with estimated job losses ranging from 184,000 to 316,000.

“President Obama admits there is a great cost to Americans because of the EPA’s proposed regulation on coal ash,” McKinley said. “While his estimates are dramatically low, he agrees with those of us who has said this is one of the costliest proposed regulations by the EPA. The question comes down to this: will the president finally make the economy a priority by supporting this jobs bill, or will he forge ahead down a path that even he now acknowledges will cost the economy dearly?”

Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) introduced legislation that would prevent hundreds of dollars in increased electricity costs, stop hundreds of thousands of job losses, and strengthen and protect public health by blocking the EPA’s proposal and instead establish a state-based regulatory framework for coal ash. The bill would tighten the disposal and the management of coal ash and give states the control of the program as well as the ability to work with the EPA to ensure it is handled, stored and monitored properly. This legislation was passed through the full Energy and Commerce committee 35-12, with one-third of the committee’s Democrats crossing over to support it.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced Monday that McKinley’s legislation will receive a vote in the full House of Representatives this fall.

###

The Tenth Anniversary of a Heinous Attack. What's Missing?

9/11 is fast approaching. It's hard to believe that ten years have passed since some unidentified group of people did something pretty bad. But we should forget the bad stuff and trade in our SUVs for a hybrid the size of a toaster oven.

Ludicrous? Yup. But that is the gist of the Obama Administration's plans for commemorating the tenth anniversary of the attacks on our nation. The word is out. Don't mention Al Quaeda. Focus on moving forward with the left wing agenda and emphasize the unity felt on the days after the attacks.

Not only is this ludicrous, but highly disrespectful. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt commemorating Pearl Harbor Day 1944 and leaving out the Japanese. Obama may have forgotten that America is still fighting. The enemy still wants to kills our soldiers and attack our cities if he can. How do you avoid mentioning the enemy on the day that he started the war? Where does this leave our soldiers in the national consciousness?

Obama wants to emphasize and bring back an unnatural unity. Unity such as in the days after 9/11 only happens after events of great trauma. None of our national wars received unconditional and unified support. Peaceful division is a symptom of a healthy society, not a sick one. Obama wants us all to unify behind his agenda. We need to stand up and remember 9/11 for what it was, a heinous and cowardly attack because of our liberty, not a "national day of service" as Obama prefers. Remember and cherish our freedoms. Remember those who sacrificed, both on that day and since. Some chose to fight for their country, others just went to work. This is why we remember 9/11.

All Too Often, Education Stops At the Schoolhouse Doors

Education often finds itself barred from the schoolhouse. Certainly schools have books, computers, teachers, and other modes of transmitting information, but a complete education does not come from these alone. Education comes from discussion and debate of issues, ideas, and values. Schools are certainly okay with expressions of certain kinds of values and love to toss about the word "tolerance." However, tolerance, and education itself, end when the school slams the doors shut on ideas that it will not tolerate.

La Reina High School of Thousand Oaks, California joins the list of schools that have shut their eyes, ears, and minds to the concepts of natural rights, free markets, and other values held dear by Americans for centuries. One of the students at this religious school for girls wanted to open a Young Americans for Freedom club. She met all of the required criteria, but was told that her club was politically biased in nature. YAF clubs are not connected to any political party and only represent ideas long established in American tradition. How shocking that a school would reject a club that would enhance discussions of politics, economics, and society!

Their position on this matter is untenable because of the nature of one of the other clubs on campus. "The Green Team" is a club that promotes "eco-friendly" behavior and raising student awareness of environmental issues. If students want a green club, that should be fine. But let's not pretend that environmentalism is completely non partisan, but discussions of free markets and natural rights are too political.

La Reina High School plays the same old tune. Liberal causes get the welcome mat while those deemed conservative get shut out. It's not that anyone should force this private school to open this or that club. They should feel that it is part of their educational mission to permit these activities.

Michelle Obama or Marie Antoinette? Who Was More Out of Touch?

The American media for the most part has been hammering the president on his lack of, well, almost anything presidential. Comments from former supporters parallel the complaints of Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives in 2008. The president looks overwhelmed, incapable, and out of touch. But his worse public relations problem may be his wife.

First Ladies don't normally attract bipartisan scorn. Few complaints were aimed at Laura or Barbara Bush, who were models of grace and dignity. Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton attracted criticism because opponents saw them as too involved in their husbands' presidency.

Michelle Obama has not involved herself much in policy, but has not escaped controversy. Last week, Maureen Dowd wrote in her New York Times column that Obama dared not cut short his vacation at swanky Martha's Vineyard because it might anger Michelle. British newspapers have joined American conservatives in blasting her incessant and expensive vacations that drained the federal government of at least $10 million in the past year. Neither Obama seems to understand that vacationing and playing round after round of golf whole lecturing the country on sacrifice might lower their credibility a bit. George W. Bush got attacked for travel too, but mostly went to his own home in Texas to work.

The name that often pops up in relation to Michelle Obama has been Queen Marie Antoinette of France. As the popular story goes, a concerned citizen approached her at a party and asked her if she knew that the people had no bread. Her response of "let them eat cake" drew derision for years as a typical example of ignorant wealth. In reality, Marie Antoinette sympathized with the poor and constantly tried to learn more about their plight. When she said "let the eat cake," her hand gestured towards tens of pounds of uneaten cake that would go to waste otherwise.

Marie Antoinette had little knowledge, but overwhelming sympathy. Michelle Obama has mainly gone on vacation and condemned poor parents who feed their children cheap and fattening food over expensive, price supported, fresh fruits and vegetables. She will probably go down as one of the least liked First Ladies in history, a difficult feat indeed.

David McKinley Fires Back At Michigan Congressman Who Seeks to Shut Down Coal

Rep. McKinley’s Statement on Rep. Conyers’ Out of Touch Claims on West Virginia’s Coal Industry

Washington, D.C. –Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) issued the following statement after Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) claimed from his limited understanding that “there is no such thing as clean coal,” during an Environmental Protection Agency conference. Conyers went a step further to disgrace West Virginians by calling for a shutdown of the coal industry.

"The comments made by Rep. Conyers are very disappointing,” said McKinley. “As lawmakers we should be encouraging job creation and expansion, not fighting to end American industries. West Virginia's lifeblood is coal, which means jobs for many hard working people throughout our state. As Americans are struggling to make ends meet and our nation is facing record high unemployment, I would encourage Rep. Conyers to focus his efforts on job creation and less on tearing down our industries in West Virginia."

Rep. McKinley is on the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as a member of the Congressional Coal Caucus. McKinley has also introduced and championed many pieces of pro-coal legislation in his short time in Congress.

Kudos also to Senator Joe Manchin for firing back int he strongest possible terms.

"In Case of An Actual Emergency..."

These words form part of every announced test of the Emergency Broadcast System. The phrase concludes with a reminder that the tone will be followed by actual information.

Monday, Earth gave us its version of the Emergency Broadcast System test. Washington D. C. failed. Trains ran at a snail's pace, commuters waited for hours on subway platforms and in traffic jams. The city's transport system groaned under the weight of hundreds of thousands of folks trying to exit at the same time.

Watching the jam packed expressways and train stations worries me. Do we have a better evacuation plan for the nation's capital in case of something like a dirty bomb, chemical, or biological weapon? It seems that terrorists could orchestrate a multi-part plan that causes the panicked evacuation, then preys upon people waiting helplessly to leave. I am sure that something does exist that they would not haul out for a moderate earthquake. Then again, New Orleans had nothing in place to adequately prepare for a disaster that would inevitably occur and the heavy loss of life after Katrina was the result.

I don't need to know every detail of the plan. But I hope there is one.

The F 35 Must Remain a Priority In An Uncertain World

A strong defense essential for America

Cutting defense spending is a bad idea. Period.

As Congress looks for ways to trim the federal budget and get the deficit under control, everything seems to be on the table. However, one area where America cannot afford to make sweeping cuts is defense and national security.

Legislators, political columnists and regular citizens have debated what programs need trimmed and even eliminated.

A recent opinion piece by Robert Samuelson in The Washington Post entitled “10 Ways to Fix The Budget” addressed the issue. Here is an excerpt:

“Evaluate defense needs independently — and pay for them. National security is the government’s first job. When America’s military is put in harm’s way, it should not become a victim of a rich nation’s cheapness.”

That quote says it all. Defending our nation is our government’s first job. Congress should not be swayed by political pressures to do something that would endanger our nation or reduce our military superiority. It is what separates us from so many other nations.

One military project that has been scrutinized inside and out is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, currently being developed for our military. This aircraft is undergoing testing, and once operational it will save our nation money in the long run by allowing us to retire aging aircraft. This stealth fighter is exactly what we must retain to keep America’s military superiority intact at a time when the world poses so many grave threats.

(Here is the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/10-ways-to-fix-the-budget/2011/08/14/gIQA5xriFJ_story.html?hpid=z3)

Question: Is Obama Sabotaging His Own Re-election?

While reading from a Maureen Dowd column on Obama this morning, I came to an epiphany. It may not necessarily be true, but it is food for thought for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Dowd in the New York Times explained that the president did not call lawmakers back into session this month during alarming economic news, in part, because it would ruin his vacation and anger his wife.

Can you imagine the response to this little tidbit from Harry Truman? I bet he would love nothing more than to come out of his grave and throttle this guy. Would Franklin Roosevelt put off addressing great national issues so he could spend more time on vacation? Only a few presidents would have acted in such a way as to create this perception, none since World War II. But Obama's chronic vacationing has created the impression that he regards this gig as part time.

On a personal note, my new job requested my presence in the middle of my vacation. While I was disappointed, I rushed to work and my family completely understood. Any reasonable spouse understands that when their loved one has an important job that it sometimes comes first.

Which brings me back to my original point. I don't think that he is all that fired up to keep his job. Being ex-president is prestigious and fun, even for Jimmy Carter. Being president is work. In my opinion, Obama wanted to enjoy the celebrity and prestige of the presidency, but underestimated his capacity to actually do the job. He could resign, but Obama picked an even worse guy for the job as his running mate. If any other legitimate Democratic possibilities pop up in the next few months, I could see Obama "Lyndon Johnsoning" himself and declining to run for re-election. Declining to run again is a dignified way out, if he can muster the courage to make the decision. As far as being president is concerned, Obama does not seem to like the job, or be very good at it.

And he and the Democratic Party are well aware of that problem. The Republicans' worst nightmare is a conservative to moderate nominee from the opposing party for the presidency in 2012. I am sure that Democrats realize that, as well.

Obama's "Swing 'Round the Circle"

On the Magical Misery Tour, the debt man walking continued his Andrew Johnson impersonation, traveling around the Midwest, giving speeches that even further bury his presidency. (In 1866, Johnson conducted his "Swing 'Round the Circle" tour where he took on Congress in a series of speeches. By the end of the tour, train officials routinely feared for the life of the president because the crowds grew so violent.) In his most recent speech, Obama compared criticism of himself to that of Lincoln. This implied that opposition to Obama is quasi-treasonous, a note he has sounded in the past. None other than Eric Foner, quasi left wing historian of the Civil War and Reconstruction era, slammed Obama's recent self-comparison to the 16th president.

Obama's series of speeches, like Johnson's, have laid bare the nature of the president. He is self-absorbed without enduring self-reflection. His speeches emphasize his trials, his suffering, his political enemies' machinations. Audiences in 1866 found these themes unnerving in their chief executive. In 2011, the president is trying to toss everyone under his bus, but so far has only thrown his own reputation beneath the wheels.

Obama criticism has not even reached the depths of the fecal matter slung at his predecessor, much less the unfortunate Lincoln, who endured commentary on every aspect of his presidency and life. Few people, really outside of me, have questioned Obama's intelligence and all will admit that he can read a teleprompter with style. People have issues with how the president has performed so far. He has made glaring errors on every level and has no shortage of other people to blame. Most recently, he blamed politics itself as the main obstacle to his leading us to a glorious promised land.

People are fed up. Even his own supporters, such as those in the Congressional Black Caucus, imply that he has been less of a savior and more of a carnival barker. Obama is reminiscent of Harry Truman's description of another failed president, James Buchanan in that he spent a long period of time trying to become president, then once he got there, he had no sense of how to do the job.