November wasn't a particularly good month for President Obama in the polls. Not disastrous by any means, but not very cheerful either. Obama laid relatively low in the public eye last month, wanting to be seen (one assumes) as conferring seriously with his advisors over his new Afghanistan strategy. Which, unfortunately, translated into "not wanting to be seen" by the public.

But, by doing so, his approval numbers continued their gradual slide downwards this month. And, although not reflected in our once-a-month snapshot, the truly worrisome thing for the White House is that for the first time, Obama's numbers flirted with going below 50 percent. This isn't an enormous deal (as, for instance, going below 40 percent would be), but it is still a big red flag to politicians, because it means you don't have the job approval of over half of the public.

So we begin today by taking a look at all of this and what it means, followed by our continuing march backwards through previous presidents (to see how their numbers line up with Obama's). This month, we take a look at Jimmy Carter's term in office.

Updated charts of how Obama compares to G.W. Bush, Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, and Reagan are available (as always) at the ObamaPollWatch.com site.

Continue Reading »

I know I'm supposed to be writing about Afghanistan today, in advance of President Obama's speech tonight, but I am still waiting to hear what the man has to say before analyzing it, so you'll just have to join me as I wait and see.

Instead, I would like to note a curious reversal in "the other war." For seven years (not counting the first one, of course), Afghanistan has been labeled the "other war" or even the "forgotten war." The media flocked into Iraq when we invaded, covered the story's arc as it went from gung-ho to miserable, all the while largely ignoring Afghanistan. Who can really blame them? President Bush was obsessed with Iraq, and Afghanistan was seen (rightly or wrongly) as a problem which had already been solved. Of course, now we know different, what with the Senate placing the blame for allowing Osama Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora squarely at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration's entire rush to get into Iraq. But ever since the Iraq invasion, Afghanistan has been a mere afterthought, in the media's eyes, in the public's awareness, and in the White House as well.

Continue Reading »

The White House has always been a magnet for all kinds of lunatics, so it's not surprising that a pair of wannabe reality show stars attempted to crash a party last week. What surprised everyone, of course, is that they got in. This shocked the media and politicians alike, because together they compromise the "inside the Beltway" set -- who become more than a little bit afraid when the "common folk" intrude on their shindigs. Hence the widespread and breathless coverage of this story for nigh on a week now. But, I repeat, the White House has always been a giant magnet for lunatics and other invaders throughout America's history.

Continue Reading »

Because yesterday's column was a wee bit un-holiday-spirit-ish, I offer up my thanks today. I am thankful for the web. I am thankful that I can sit in front of a machine and have at my fingertips perhaps not the sum of human knowledge, but a pretty close approximation (the closest the race has ever seen since, perhaps, the library at Alexandria).

Continue Reading »

I was kind of hoping I wouldn't have to address this subject, but an etymological battle in Washington seems to have just been stirred up further, meaning I just have to jump on top (so to speak) of the semantic debate.

I speak of whores. That's right, whores. Prostitutes. Hookers.

Because some in Washington have apparently latched onto these terms either as a favorite insult to hurl, or as a faux-controversy (while giving Oscar-worthy performances of having the Victorian vapors over hearing the words). Following close behind are charges of "sexism" and "insensitivity" and probably a few other "-isms" to boot.

To which I say: "Oh, Puh-LEEZE."

Continue Reading »

Certain Democrats in Congress, in advance of President Obama's announcement of his new Afghanistan strategy, have come up with a rather novel idea -- to actually pay for the wars we're fighting, by passing a "war tax." The idea is an interesting one, in several ways. At this point, it doesn't appear to have enough support to actually pass, but that could change quickly as Democrats make the case for it to the public.

The idea itself is a basic one -- pay for the costs of war now, instead of endlessly borrowing money in order to do so. A few weeks ago, the White House leaked an interesting factoid -- it costs one million dollars to put one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year. This is a nice round number, and gets people to think about the war in a new light -- how much it costs.

We've already spent over a trillion (that's with a "T") dollars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. None of it was paid for through new taxes -- the first time in American history we have gone to war without at least attempting to raise the money to pay for it. This is part of the reason why the federal government is running such a huge deficit right now.

Continue Reading »

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are now, to use a poker term, "all in" on healthcare reform. Some may immediately respond to hearing this by saying: "Hey, Chris, you're just on an endless quest for fresh, new metaphors to describe the healthcare reform effort, after writing about it for months." I won't quibble the point. Having pretty much exhausted our sports metaphors for now (at least until the Winter Olympics and all that ultra-hip snowboarding lingo comes barrelling down the hill), we turn to the world of card games for today's installment. Which brings us to the poker hand we've been dealt on healthcare reform. But rather than focusing on the cards themselves, let's instead take a look at the betting action. Because Democrats have now officially gone from "pot committed" to "all in." The stakes, to be blunt, have been raised until they are as high as they can go. And losing this particular hand could have some major consequences for the party as a whole.

Continue Reading »

Our illustrious (cough, cough) White House press corps showed it could get to the bottom of a story with impressively journalistic and probative skills this week. The story that so obviously required multiple questions to President Obama on his trip to Asia? Whether he's eating enough, and whether he's losing weight. Oh, and his gray hair.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. Somebody, obviously bored on the excruciatingly long plane ride, decided they'd float the rumor that Obama was skipping meals and getting dangerously thin. Because the reporters were all trapped in the same flying aluminum can, they all decided it was a big deal, patted themselves on the back for doing so, and then took lots of valuable interview time with the president to ask him about it. Over and over again (since they all wanted the "scoop"). Obama's response was that he was eating just fine, thank you, and he wasn't any skinnier than he's always been.

Whew! Good thing we have such an illustrious cadre of journalists, to reassure Americans that the president is not starving himself or anything! After all, it's not like there are any other issues to talk about, or ask the president about.

Continue Reading »

I haven't yet read Sarah Palin's (or, more accurately, Sarah Palin's ghostwriter's) new book, nor do I intend to. Just wanted to say that, right up front. But I have heard one piece of very disturbing information from her book, if Maureen Dowd can be trusted. Dowd, in her signature Extra-Snarky™ style, takes on Palin's book this week in her column. The relevant bit:

We both [Palin and Dowd] came from families that loved Ronald Reagan, drove Ramblers and watched "The Lawrence Welk Show" and "The Wonderful World of Disney" on Sunday nights.

Palin's family owned a Rambler? Shoot, now I have to be nice to her, I guess [Full disclosure: I am a big Rambler fan]. Well, she'll never beat Mitt Romney for Rambler credentials by anyone's measure, seeing as how Mitt's dad George was the head of American Motors Corporation at the time the Rambler was introduced, and was duly called the "Father of the Rambler." But still, the thought of a young Palin rambling around certainly does give her a connection to American families everywhere (of a certain age).

Continue Reading »

This column is really a second installment to yesterday's ("How To Not Give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed What He Wants"), where I took a look at two of the criticism's against Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in federal civilian court rather than in a military tribunal.

Continue Reading »