Recently this Florida Pastor has been getting a lot of publicity for daring to burn a Quran in public.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/8/anti-koran-cleric-sees-modern-battle-with-evil/

 The world is outraged.  What a terrible thing to do.  This is going to make people hate us all over the world.  Of course they already hate us, so it is just a matter of degree.   Now granted this is a two-bit clown totally undeserving of his 15 minutes of fame.  This is a dumb thing to do, since it will stir up hate and discontent with no discernible benefit to anyone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_as/quran_burning_reaction

 But perhaps the more important issue is the hypocrisy of the main stream media.  What was barely noticed is that our own military is burning Bibles, to avoid offending the Afghanistan people:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/

Why is no one outraged over the burning of the Bible?  !   If the military didn’t want these Bibles, shouldn’t they have respectfully returned them? Instead, troops are ordered to “burn their trash.” At a minimum, shouldn’t these have been treated with respect at least equal to the Quran?  Suppose our troops had received an unsolicited copy of the Quran?  Would our military even consider ordering them to burn it along with the rest of the trash?   I seriously doubt it

President Obama was very vocal in supporting the Ground Zero Mosque.  He was even more vocal in condemning the burning of the Quran.  So has been a lot of other people, including Hillary Clinton.  But the real question should be:   “who is outraged at our troops being ordered to burn Bibles along with the trash?”  Who is outraged that the people our troops are dying to defend seem to have no problem burning our flag and shouting down with America?

The Florida Pastor is deliberately insulting Islam.  That is wrong.  We get it?  But what we don’t get is the indifference to those people who deliberately insult Christianity.  Where was the outrage when Rosie O’Donnell said that Christians were more dangerous that Islamic terrorists.  Where is the outrage when Christian ministers are constantly portrayed in the movies as naïve, self-righteous bigots?  It is increasingly obvious that one must never insult any religion, except Christianity.  Then insults are not only acceptable, they are celebrated.

I am outraged at the burning of the Quran, but I am even more outraged at the daily barrage of insults against Christianity.  I am also sick and tired of hearing Islam described as a religion of peace when Islamic Terrorists are blowing people up all over the world, in the name of jihad shouting Allah Akbar.  When Christians start blowing up people in the name of Christ, then and only then will I consider the two religions equally dangerous.

A final thought.  In case any of you were wondering exactly how far out of touch Obama is with regard to the American people, his most recent speech is very interesting.  He described his principles as the “values of self-reliance and individual responsibility” and “a country that rewards hard work.  A country built upon the promise of opportunity and upward mobility.”  He contrasted his principles with Republicans who are “asking us to settle for a status quo of stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness and a shrinking middle class.”  What is most remarkable is that Obama probably believes this, and does not even see the obvious conflict between these stated principles and his policy decisions of massive government spending and complete control over individual lives.  I don’t see how it is possible to reason with a person whose view of the world is so far detached from reality.

TDM

Obama’s Ship of State is now sinking at an unprecedented rate.  The following article calls Obama’s Foreign Policy a failure.  He is compared unfavorably with… George W. Bush:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-06/obamas-foreign-policy-fails-on-afghanistan-israel

This is hardly a right-wing rag.  Tina Brown, the founder, is very liberal and they were very supportive of Obama, until recently.

This last weekend, just about everyone turned on Obama.  He is no longer getting high grades from either left or right:                 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/07/wapos-cohen-obama-needs-fire-key-people-or-americans-will-fire-him

The tea leaves are all lined up and they are showing a full-fledged Democratic disaster this fall.  While a few die-hards are pretending that Democrats can maintain control of the House, most strategists are now predicting the Republicans will take back the House.  In addition, for the first time, Democratic strategists are admitting that the Senate is also in play.

 What’s astonishing is that nearly two months before the election, Democrats are already into the blame game.  The person they are all blaming is Obama.  Clearly, everyone expected better than this.  Even more clearly, very few people in either party think Obama is up to the job.  Republicans are angry at what Obama is doing to the country.  Democrats are angry at what Obama is doing to the Democratic party.  For the first time in decades, Republicans and Democrats agree on one thing; they are all angry at Obama.

 Obama is showing more and more signs of losing his grip.  This weekend he literally complained that Republicans were treating him like a Dog.  What a remarkable comment by a U.S. President.  This is the ultimate “it’s all about me” comment.

 The following article shows that the Democratic strategy of “blame Bush” no longer works. 

 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/voters_arent_listening_to_dem_message.html

 The White House is in panic mode.  This is a time to be alert, because they can literally see power slipping away before their eyes.  The $50 billion stimulus program proposed by Obama on Sunday was dead on arrival.  It should be clear, even to Obama, that most Democrats are not about to vote for anything between now and December.  Desperate people do desperate things.  Read my “Wag The Donkey” post:

 https://scotshonor.com/?p=333

Nothing is impossible with this administration.

 TDM

Some of you may recall that I used to teach Statistic at the college level.  I could not resist running some fairly simple regression analysis based on polling data to date to see if I could come up with a statistically sound range of possible outcomes. 

 According to Gallop, today in the generic vote for congress, there are 51% Republicans, 41% Democrats and 8% independents.   The same poll shows that the enthusiasm level for Republicans is 54% while the enthusiasm level for Democrats is 30%.  Here is what that means.    Let’s assume that the enthusiasm level is identical to expected turnout.  That means that 54% of Republicans would probably vote, 30% of Democrats would probably vote and 50% of Independents would probably vote.

 If we calculate assuming nothing changes between now and November 2, this would be what to expect:

 GOP  62%   DEM  28%  IND 10%

Now let’s assume Democrats make a major effort to generate enthusiasm.  They are unlikely to change the generic percentages this late in the game, but they may succeed in changing the enthusiasm.  Let’s assume they hit it out of the park and increase enthusiasm to 60%, while GOP enthusiasm plateaus at 57 percent.  This is what that election would look like:

 GOP 48%  DEM 45%  IND 7%

 Now let’s assume that the Republicans surge even more, up to the enthusiasm levels they had in 1994.  The Republican enthusiasm could soar to as high as 67% and we will assume that Democrats also increase, up to around 40%.   In that case the results would look like this:

 GOP 68%  DEM 28%  IND 8%

 Now, lets do a standard statistic analysis and provide even weighting to each outcome.  The average result is:

 GOP 58%  DEM 32%  IND 10%

 I know these numbers appear to be too good to be true, but recent results are very consistent with them.  For example in the recent ballot on Proposition C, the vote to repeal Obama care a poll was conducted of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats just before the election.  61% of Republicans were for the Proposition, 48% of Democrats were against the proposition.   In Missouri most of the elected officials are Democrats, but it is also somewhat conservative and John McCain carried Missouri by a very tiny margin in 2008.  Normally one would expect more Democrats than Republicans.  So most polling firms evaluating a poll of 300 Republicans and 300 Democrats would have adjusted the final estimate in favor of Democrats.   Scott Rasmussen, who typically rates Republicans higher than other polling firms estimated that Proposition C would pass 58% to 41%.  But the actual results was that Proposition C was passed with more than 70% of the vote.  

 Even if one assumes that the generic party affiliation in Missouri has shifted from 50/50 to 51/41, it would not explain this result.  That would have indicated a final vote of about 62% to 38%.  Clearly, at least in Missouri with regard to Proposition C, the difference in Republican enthusiasm was equally important as the difference in the generic ballot.  In fact when I used my analysis to factor in the expected voter turnout to be roughly proportionate to enthusiasm, based on the results of that last minute poll, I come up with an expected result of 73% to 27%, not that much higher than the actual 71% to 29% actual result.

 My methods are obviously crude, because I do not have access to sufficient data and because I have only spent a small amount of time on this.  However when existing data is this skewed, the projected outcomes, baring major unforeseen intervening events, are at least possible.  I am not predicting results, just commenting on the probability of some outcomes based on the Gallop Poll today. 

 I strongly suspect that all of the pollsters are seeing similar results but they are too shocked to report them.  I don’t blame them, because these kinds of results are unprecedented.  It is really hard to imagine Republicans coming close to getting 60% of the vote under any circumstances and doing better than that is pie in the sky range.  It would result in a political landslide of proportions never seen before in this country.  It is like predicting that the laughing stock of the National League for the period from 1962 to 1968, the New York Mets, would win the World Series in 1969.   Oops.  That happened!

 TDM

Tony Blair just published his long-awaited memoirs.   It is important to realize that Tony Blair was a liberal, adored by the main stream media.  He was everything George Bush was not, suave, sophisticated and undeniably brilliant.  But here is what Blair wrote about Bush:

Many Brits are perplexed that Blair was apparently persuaded to join that foreign adventure by President George W. Bush, who is often portrayed in the U.K. media as a dumb hick. But the former prime minister insists that Bush was “very smart” while possessing an “immense simplicity in how he saw the world.”

“I was asked recently which of the political leaders I had met had most integrity,” he says. “I listed George near the top. He had genuine integrity and as much political courage as any leader I ever met.”

Ultimately, I strongly believe that history will agree with Mr. Blair.  No one in the world knew more about the real intelligence regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein than Tony Blair.  It would be hard to make a case that George Bush tricked Tony Blair into believing anything.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media will notice and if they do, I wonder if they will dare report it accurately.  For years the mainstream media has portrayed Bush as a naïve, stupid, corrupt right wing bigot.  It is hard to reconcile that image with the statements by Mr. Blair.  Either Mr. Blair is naïve and incompetent, or the press got this all bass ackwards.

George Bush is about to release his memoirs, on November 9th.   I believe that people are going to be stunned to find out that the Bush who shows up in print is brilliant man, with enormous integrity and unequalled political courage.   The contrast with Obama will be too obvious to ignore.  The problem for the Press is that George Bush knows the truth, which they either ignored or failed to recognize.  I think a lot of other people will recognize the truth when they see it.

TDM

Democrats are praying that very few people watched Obama’s speech from the Oval Office.  This speech was not merely bad, it was world class bad.  Obama looked like an undertaker reading a eulogy for someone he despised.  The speech started out bad, and then got worse.  At every step it was flat and boring.   He literally sat there staring at his TelePrompter, with his hands folded and a blank stare on his face.  I have no idea why he thought he needed to do this.  The only time he showed anything resembling enthusiasm was when he was blaming Bush.

 He started out by describing this as a historic milestone.  No victory.  No achievement.  Not even any goals.  The closest speech to this was when Ford took over for Nixon and said our long national nightmare was over.  But, Obama didn’t say that the Iraq war is over, he just said we were dumping the problem on Iraq and while we might continue to help a little, very little, we are out of there.

 He started by blaming everything on Bush and basically reminding us that he thought the whole war was a huge waste.  Then he explained why he thought George Bush was wrong about everything, but Obama had to admit Bush probably was just as much of a patriot as Obama.  Some people misinterpreted this as an act of class.  It was pathetic.  I am sure Bush would have prefered being ignored.  Please!

 It is clear that the primary goal of this speech was to avoid any potential for giving Bush credit for anything.  Sometimes this resulted in statements that, upon reflection, are bizarre.

 For example:

 They (American troops) defeated a regime that had terrorized its people.

 Apparently the unnecessary war “accidentally” removed Saddam from power?  Hmmm!  Bush gets no credit for defeating Saddam; it was apparently an accidental byproduct of a failed policy.

 Together with our coalition partners, who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.

 For years Democrat’s have complained that Iraq was the war where the U.S. went alone with absolutely no support from anyone.  Who were these strange people who made huge sacrifices of their own?  This actually shows that one of the big Democratic arguments against the war is and was a lie.  Obama is right; there were many countries that stood side by side with us at great cost, because they believed in our cause.  Its too bad Democrats only recognize this after over 6 ½ years of sacrifice.  Also too bad that Obama seems equally willing to toss them under the bus along with the people in Iraq.

 Then he is careful to give all the credit to the troops and ignoring the man who made it possible:

They (American Troops) shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces and took out terrorist leaders. 

 There was no “they,” there was only George Bush.  A President who refused to bow to political pressure from people like Barack Obama who were confident this change in tactics could not work.  Barack Obama kept telling people the surge couldn’t possibly work even after it was abundantly clear that it had worked.  Apparently Obama thinks that our troops got together in a huddle and just decided on their own to shift tactics.  Amazing!

Then Obama pretended that he had developed the plan to withdraw our troops.  That is absurd.  The plan to withdraw our troops was developed by George Bush and there was a signed agreement with the Iraqi Government before Obama even took office.  The only difference was that Bush refused to set an inflexible arbitrary deadline since he knew that would be very harmful for our troops.  Something like giving sustenance to our enemies.

 Then Obama flat out lied, but of course we are used to that:

 Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. 

 The opposite is true.  Violence has surged since our troops started to withdraw and the following article from CBS describes the situation as chaos:   

 http://www.keyc.com/node/41105

 The author, Joel Brown, CBS New, The White House ends with the following:

 Iraqis officials are hoping the violence is just a temporary spike . They say they’re confident the nation’s 650,000 security forces will eventually regain control.

 Either Obama was too busy golfing on Martha’s Vineyard to notice what is happening in Iraq, or he just decided to lie about it.

At this point, it is important to understand what Bush got right and what he got wrong in Iraq.   The campaign to remove Saddam Hussein was brilliant.  All of the military experts, like Wesley Clark, were predicting a long bloody conflict.  Instead the U.S. moved with lightening speed and threw Saddam out of power with record low casualties.  This Bush made a major mistake.  He listened to Democrats.  People like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were telling him he needed to win the hearts and minds of the people.  They were recommending that the U.S. military keep a low profile and instead we should invest billions in building infrastructure, avoid combat and invest primarily in training the Iraqi police and military.  We were also going to send in civilians to show how nice we can be.  It was a disaster, because al Qaeda just moved in full force and launched wide scale terrorist attacks against civilians and literally set off a civil war by blowing up a mosque.  Civilians soon learned that Iraq was death zone.  Al Qaeda didn’t view them as anything other than easy targets.  Iraq descended into near chaos.

Democrats were calling for us to just quit without regard to consequences.  But then Bush did something remarkable.  He refused to quit because he said that to quit would be to throw away the sacrifices of those who had fought there.  On numerous occasions he said he could not let those people die in vain.  Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought the situation was hopeless, so Bush keep searching until he found a General who thought he could win.  General Petraeus said we needed to reverse course.  He said we could not win the hearts and minds of the people until they felt secure.  He said we needed to send in more troops, relax the rules of engagement and take on al Qaeda and the insurgents.   Bush, in defiance of almost everyone with the possible exception of John McCain said he ordered the surge because he could not and would not settle for less than victory.  That is what a real President does.

 Here is Obama’s “new” plan:

 As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians, aid workers and advisors are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world.

 He is going to adopt the original Bush plan, that was a complete failure.  Perhaps it will work this time.  Perhaps our military has bought enough time so that Iraq can exert self control  Perhaps al Qaeda will avoid killing our civilians.  Perhaps aid workers won’t mind getting blown to pieces for the greater good, but somehow I doubt it.  But this time there is a big difference.  This time al Qaeda knows that Barack won’t fight back.  Unfortunately, that may be a fatal difference.  I sincerely hope that Iraq will be ready, willing and able to stand up to al Qaeda.  

Obama, who ignored giving credit to Bush for the surge in Iraq, announces that he is going to win the war in Afghanistan by ordering a surge similar to the one that worked in Iraq.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media will notice that this is the height of inconsistency.

Finally, Obama goes completely over the top.  His speech is so bizarre it borders on delusion.  He says:

One of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone.  We must use all elements of our power – including our diplomacy, our economic strength and the power of America’s example – to secure our interests and stand by our allies.

 Really?  We tried that approach in Iraq and should have learned the real lesson.  The best way to defeat terrorist is to kill them.  It was only when we did choose to use our military force effectively that we began to make real progress in Iraq.

 The following line is delusional:

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners.

What planet is Obama talking about?  What old adversaries are now at peace because of anything Obama did since coming into office?  Where are those emerging democracies, other than Iraq?  Liberals keep saying you cannot create democracy with military force.  I wonder if any of them have ever heard of Germany or Japan?  And where is there democracy today, in South Korea, where we won or South Vietnam where we lost?

 Finally, Obama had to once again blame all the problems in the world on George Bush:

Unfortunately over the last decade we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity.  We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas.  This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.  For too long we have put off tough decision on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform.  As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

 With Obama, everything is Bush’s fault.  There is never any other option.  Just this week the CBO published a report showing that Obama’s failed stimulus plan spent more money in one year than the cost of the entire Iraq war to date.  In addition, Bush only increased military spending to 4% of GDP, the percentage many bi-partisan experts feel is appropriate to sustain our military at the appropriate level.  Of course Democrats blame our entire deficit on the Bush tax cuts.  The same Bush tax cuts that are due to expire this fall, resulting in the largest tax increase on the middle class in history.  Now if the Bush tax cuts only impacted the wealthy, why does reversing them result in a big tax increase on the middle class?  Democrats couldn’t have been lying about that, could they?  Now, of course, even Democrats are talking about extending the Bush tax cuts.  I wonder if Obama noticed that?

 The problem is that although this is pure hog wash, Obama believes every word of it.  That is why we have no hope of economic recovery as long as he remains in power.  He lives in a delusional world none of us can even recognize.  I believe the Republicans will win the House and the Senate this fall.  However, I doubt they will win a veto proof majority in the Senate.  The good news is that it is going to be much harder for Obama to do more damage after November 2.  The bad news is that he is likely to remain clueless and delusional and will continue to think he is right regardless of evidence to the contrary. 

 TDM

The main stream media still loves Obama, but even they realize he is not up to the job.  They have finally been forced to realize that Obama’s economic policies are an unmitigated disaster.  The following article provides the video and the transcript from ABC’s this week.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/08/29/george-will-and-entire-week-panel-smack-down-donna-braziles-call-more-spending

The following dialogue by Christiane Amanpour and Donna Brazile is nothing short of a political earthquake:

BRAZILE: The Bush tax cuts are unaffordable. We cannot simply afford another $700 billion in debt that — and there’s no evidence that the Bush tax cuts will create jobs.

AMANPOUR: But there are some who are saying that perhaps that might happen…

BRAZILE: Well, I don’t…

AMANPOUR: … that the Democrats are under some pressure to maybe — maybe keep them on.

Brazile starts with the standard Democratic spin argument that all of economic problems were caused by the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts.  But note that even a hardcore Bush hating liberal like Amanpour cannot take it any more and she weakly admits that extending the Bush tax cuts might create jobs.  Wow!  What’s more, it is obvious that a lot of people in the media and the liberal left have reached the same conclusion.   They have finally admitted, if only to themselves, that the Bush tax cuts resulted in the fastest recovery from a recession in our nation’s history and contrary to Democratic spin, these tax cuts did create millions of jobs.  She also admitted that even Democrats in congress are being pressured to keep them on.  It is going to be very hard for Democrats to argue that Bush caused our economic problems when the only solution agreed upon by both parties is that his tax cuts offer the best solution for our current problems.

Also note that the new economic model is Germany, which adopted tax cuts and spending cuts.  There are few things more effective than turning on a light bulb in a dark room.  If nothing else the complete collapse of Obama’s economic program has forced at least some in the liberal left to let in the bright light of economic reality.  Will miracles never cease?

Finally, two pictures.  One of Obama on a bike.The other of Bush on a bike.  Bush was probably the most athletic President we ever had.  Obama is a limp wristed wimp.

TDM

It is one thing for the media to get a story wrong.  Sometimes, in the midst of an event, it is easy for a reporter to make a mistake.  I still remember when those miners were trapped in a coal mine in West Virginia.  A report leaked that all the miners had been found alive.  The reports on the scene were elated.  But, unfortunately, that report was wrong.  It turned out that only one miner lived and he was severely injured.  But it is another thing to get a story wrong, refuse to admit it, and just continue to repeat the lies. 

The worse case of case of media malpractice was with regard to Hurricane Katrina.  The news media reported a national tragedy, with people dying needlessly, surrounded by violence and mayhem with no government help.  The problem is that the media got almost everything wrong.  I wrote a post on this several months ago.  If you want a refresher on what really happened, here is the link:

https://scotshonor.com/?p=201

Unlike the main stream media, my post is based on solid documentation, rather then antidotes by camera hungry malcontents and continuous reruns of the same misleading videos accompanied by self-congratulatory comments by arrogant news anchors.

I just watched Fox News interview people about how terrible it was in the Superdome after Katrina.  It was bad.  People were hungry, it smelled and it was hot and humid.  They were uncomfortable and they were angry.  But there was nothing said about the greatest search and rescue operation in the history of the world that was going on at the same time.  Literally hundreds of helicopters, boats and other vehicles were organized in a desperate effort to save over 100,000 people who were in deadly peril.  Initial estimates were for a death toll in excess of 10,000.  In any other country in the world, that would have been true.  But that did not happen in New Orleans, because of a heroic effort by the National Guard and the Coast Guard.  The main stream media still has refused to tell anyone what really happened.  For example, did any of you see a report indicating that an emergency hospital was function at the Superdome that treated over 5,000 people with a remarkable level of success?  Did any of you see a news report showing so many helicopters flying continuous rescue missions that the biggest fear was mid-air collision?  All of that happened, but no one reported on it.  They were too busy spreading false reports about widespread violence and hundreds of people dying unnecessarily because George Bush hated black people. 

The National Guard and the Coast Guard and FEMA knew people were unhappy, but they didn’t want to divert precious resources to placate people who were loud, angry and uncomfortable, but safe, while other people were in danger of losing their lives. 

 If you read my post, it will quickly become obvious that a lot of things went wrong after Katrina, but no one botched this more than the main stream media.  That was bad enough, but listening to them self-congratulate themselves five years later, while continuing to get almost everything wrong, is nauseating.  In reality the video tapes of the main stream media reporting on Katrina, including the segments by Shepard Smith and Geraldo Rivera should be used as training tapes on how to botch a major story. 

 TDM

President Obama was far too busy riding his bike on vacation for a nice photo op to notice that our last combat troops were leaving Iraq.   Perhaps he is working on his planned speech to take all the credit.

Former President Bush makes surprize visit to the “Run For the Fallen” event to thank the troops.

Thanks!

 Ultimately the biggest difference between Bush and Obama is class.  Bush has it, Obama doesn’t.

TDM

Barack Obama is having his sixth vacation this year.  He is back to his little $20 million rental pad on Martha’s Vineyard.  So far, due to constant rain, he has spent a lot of time playing scrabble: 

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/08/obamas_while_aw.html

Glenn Beck is holding a major event on 8-28-2010 at the Lincoln Memorial.  The liberal left has their panties in a wad because he would dare hold this on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s famous speech.  The forecast is for sunny with low humidity.

 I wonder if God votes?

 By the way, if you read this article it shows the Presidential Press Pool notes regarding Obama’s great adventure.  This is amazing stuff.  Here Michelle and Barack are waving to adoring crowds telling everyone what the great time they have having, apparently obvious to the horrible economic news.  Then when someone asked him about Iraq, he complained that he was just there to get shrimp.

 Folks, it just doesn’t get any worse than this.  On a day when the economy looks to be in free fall, the White House sends out Joe Biden to make a fool of himself.  It is so bad that the traditional democratic strategists are not even pretending any more.   They are literally recommending Democrats run away from Obama in this election.  Of course they feel that Obama’s policies are working brilliantly, but it will just take a little longer before the economy takes off.  It just amazes me that people continue to have blind faith in an economic strategy that has never worked anywhere, anytime.  Lately they are even trying to compare Obama to Reagan, saying that the economy was bad 18 months after Reagan took office.  They are right; the economy was still bad, because Carter had left office with double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates.  But Reagan has already got this tax cuts passed and the business community was showing signs of optimism.  No one is optimistic now.

 I have many business owners as clients and I don’t know of a single optimist.  Instead, I see more and more very sharp business owners who have decided things are going to be bad for at least two more years and they are cutting their losses.  It is stunning how blunt they are in discussing this economy and this President.  I think the economy on November 2 will look much worse than it does now.  That alone is really bad news for Democrats.

 The Ground Zero Mosque looks worse and worse for Obama.  More and more Democrats are deserting him on the topic and the video tapes of the Iman in charge of this Mosque are stunningly bad.  To top it off the Obama administration is sending this guy all over the world to discuss American tolerance for Islam.  That’s right, the same administration that preaches separation of church and state is paying for a Muslim cleric to represent us.  Then to top it off the White House admitted they knew he said the U.S. was bloodier than al Qaeda, but didn’t think it was a problem.  Please!

Finally, just about everyone is turning on him with regard to Afghanistan.  Even Newsweek recently ran an article today that was devastating for Obama.  And today Marine Corp Commandant, James Conway, literally said that Obama’s timeline was giving sustenance to the enemy.

 http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE67N3TA20100824

  He then talked about how some Marines are not too enthusiastic about sharing quarters with gays.  He was thinking we would have to give them an op-out option.  Wow!  This is a public slap in the face for Obama and it cannot be ignored.  It is clear that the military has had it with Obama and they are no longer willing to be tolerant.

 I have a client who just got back from Afghanistan.  He said that his squadron commander wanted to use high skilled Air Force technicians to clean latrines for the local Afghanistan people, because they didn’t want to do it themselves.  He thought this would be a good way to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.  My client said he simply could not tolerate this level of stupidity.  He said “do you really want me to use highly trained technicians to clean outhouses?”  His commander said that if he didn’t think this was a good idea, he could just accept a transfer out of Afghanistan.  My client said where do I sign?  He said they were literally stunned, and quickly backed off.   He just recently retired, which is why he felt free to talk about it.  If he is any indication, the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are fed up to their eyeballs and their commanders know it.  First it was McChrystal.  Now is it Conway.  The fight is on. 

 TDM

Rod Blagojevich is the gift that keeps on giving.  In his interview with Brian Ross from ABC News, Blagojevich says that Obama had a much closer relationship with Rezko than Blagojevich.  He even said it was Obama who introduced him to Rezko.  He then hinted that the feds wanted him to roll over on Obama: 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/blago-winston-churchill-mount-dramatic-comeback/story?id=11448425

While Blagojevich is clearly pond scum, his descriptions of the sewer retain merit.  The problem is that his comments about Rezko and Obama have the ugly odor of truth.  This couldn’t come at a worse time for Obama.  The last thing he needs is to have the main stream media really start investigating him with regard to his personal involvement in Chicago corruption.  Up until now the media, including Fox News, has refused to investigate this.  I believe that with this comment, Blagojevich has challenged the media to investigate Obama. 

Several months ago I wrote an article about how the Blagojevich trial was more dangerous for Obama than most people think.  Obama appeared to have dodged that bullet, because the Judge wouldn’t allow him to be subpoenaed and Obama’s name was not mentioned during the trial.  But it appears that Blagojevich really wanted to testify and we may now know why.  I suspect that Blagojevich thinks he is not guilty because he did not act any different than everyone else in Chicago politics.  This is kind of like the guy who knows he was speeding, but doesn’t think he did anything wrong because every one else speeds too.

Regardless of why he said it, he did say it.  It gets worse.  Blagojevich is scheduled to be interviewed by Chris Wallace.  Wow!  Chris Wallace is one of the most dangerous interviewers in the business and he is bound to follow up on this subject.  If Blagojevich does not back off these comments, Obama is in for a whole new set of problems. 

I would hazard a bet that the Obama White House has gone from crisis mode to full-fledged panic.  Obama was already in deep trouble for stepping in it with regard to the Ground Zero Mosque.  While the White House would love to change the topic, switching too Obama’s personal relationship with Rezko, a Chicago politician convicted of corruption and bribery, it not likely what they had in mind.

 It is impossible to predict where this will end up.  But, there is a significant chance that for the very first time people are going to really investigate Obama.  If any of the rumors about him are true, the first two weeks of August will look like the good ole days.

 TDM