Good:
1) Killing Beitullah Mehsud

Bad:
1) Opening the door for more taxes on the middle class


Ugly:
1) Giving North Korea a propaganda victory in the hostage standoff: While the White House claimed that former President Bill Clinton's visit to North Korea was a "personal" trip, the truth is obvious: it was a quid pro quo by the Obama administration to meet Pyongyang's demand for a visit by a prominent American official in exchange for the release of the two American journalists held hostage for months. Although, to be fair, none of the options for resolving the hostage ...<< MORE >>

Good:


Bad:


Ugly:
1) The Van Jones Fiasco: The Obama administration suffered an ugly debacle when it came to light—thanks in large part to the blogosphere—that one of the President's "green jobs czar," Van Jones, is part of the radical, nut-job 9/11 Truther movement that alleges that the US government either allowed 9/11 to happen or orchestrated the events of that tragic day. On top of that, Jones is a self-avowed Marxist and former anarchist, and publicly called Republicans "assholes" in a February speech. While everyone is entitled to the freedom of speech in this country, this is not the ...<< MORE >>

Well, today, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that a budget deal has been reached with the state's Democratic legislature to close the $26.3 billion defecit. On the positive side, the budget supposedly cuts $15.5 billion in government spending and doesn't increase taxes (although that is only a partial win since sales and income taxes went up already here in the Golden State earlier this year). So the good news is that the budget crisis—and the refusal by the state's voters to pay even more taxes—has finally forced California's liberal legislature to make some of the tough choices and ...<< MORE >>

Good:
Continuing strikes against al-Qa'ida leaders in Pakistan: I'll give President Obama his due for continuing to authorize air strikes against al-Qa'ida and Taliban leaders in Pakistan, which continued in June. The aerial campaign against al-Qa'ida began under President George W. Bush and has much of the senior al-Qa'ida leadership running scared, according to a document written by a senior al-Qa'ida leader. And finally, the Pakistani government has apparently come to realize that the continuous truces with the Taliban in the northern and western provinces is suicidal and has undertaken offensives to drive them out of the Swat valley. We'll see how long that lasts, though.

Bad:
1) Ramming cap-and-trade legislation through the House of Representatives: The President's cap and trade bill, which purports to reduce global warming, was passed with almost no Republican support (only 8 voted for it). So much for bipartisanship. The administration and Dems in the House seem content to ram their proposals through without Republican support rather than compromise to derive truly bipartisan initiatives. The cap and trade bill, if it passes the Senate, will cost families thousands in higher energy and consumer goods prices.

2) Hinting at taxing employee health benefits: At the beginning of the month, President Obama met with several Democratic Senators and said that taxing employee health benefits "is on the table." More taxes = bad idea. The White House's arguments that "solving" the health insurance "crisis" now will help end the recession are laughable. Raising taxes to support what may likely become socialized health insurance will only prolong economic stagnation by removing money from the economy and will lead to a decline in the quality of American health care.

3) Muddled White House response to the Iranian elections and the anti-Ahmedinejad protests: Obama remarked that he, like many Americans, is watching the "robust debate in Iranian politics." Um, say what? Rather than embrace oppostion to the undemocratic Iranian regime and advocate the Iranian people's right to free elections, the White House provided only public statements regarding the popular protests against the election results. Sure, the "opposition" candidate in the Iranian election, Mousavi, is far from being a true moderate or democratic figure, but the United States should still encourage any movement in Iran that advocates democratic reform.

4) Siding with Hugo Chavez over the Honduras "coup:" Yes, the Honduran military gave its president Manuel Zelaya (an ally of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez) the boot. But there's more to the story. Douglas Farah wrote an excellent article explaining how the Honduran president was trying to undermine the country's constitution and orchestrate his own Hugo Chavez-style revolution there to ensure that he could remain in power indefinitely: Honduras and the Bolivarian Revolution. Moreover the Honduran supreme court ruled that the president was in violation of the law and ordered the military to remove him.  The White House should have taken a more nuanced stance on the situation, noting Zelaya's actions to undermine Honduras' constitution rather than side with Chavez and demand Zelaya's reinstatement. When the United States takes the side of thugs like Chavez, that is a bad thing. Very bad.

5) Using CIA Director as a tool of partisan warfare: CIA Director Panetta this month made public remarks claiming that former Vice President was almost wishing for the US to be attacked. First of all, that is a ridiculous accusation to make of the former vice president—it's obvious to anyone that Cheney does not want the country to be attacked. Second, and worse, it was an entirely improper act for the director of the CIA to engage in partisan political attacks against another prominent (former) political leader. The CIA director, while appointed by the president, is expected to remain above participating in partisan warfare. There is a line that is not to be crossed, because the CIA is supposed to be nonpartisan in order to provide the President and senior political leaders with honest, objective intelligence information to carry out its other operational responsibilities with professionalism. This is the first time that I can recall a sitting CIA director engaging in a partisan attack against a former administration official. What's worse is that President Obama, at best, condoned Panetta's actions or, at worst, used the CIA Director as a tool to attack political opponents. That is a complete abomination and is likely to undermine CIA morale further as CIA officers watch their boss engage in partisan politics rather than remain neutral. This is one of the things that I feared about Panetta being appointed as CIA Director—he is a career Democratic Party activist, not an intelligence professional. I was somewhat positively surprised initially with his handling of the Agency, where he defended his people against attacks by Nancy Pelosi over the ludicrous torture allegations (which has conveniently evaporated in the face of public backlash against the Speaker's obvious political witch hunt; it seemed that Panetta was putting the business. But this partisan attack completely reversed that for me. It's clear that a tiger cannot change its stripes; Panetta is still a partisn activist first and foremost.

5) Executive order providing marriage benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees: Yet again President Obama—after vitriolically condemning President Bush for his frequent use of presidential orders to advance his political agenda—has used an executive order to advance a liberal social-economic agenda. While I haven't been keeping a firm count, Obama appears to have completely outpaced his predecessor in his issuing of presidential orders, which require no congressional approval.

Ugly:
1) Joe Biden: Already mentioning the possibility of a second stimulus plan, before even 10 percent of the first one has been spent! And then to claim that the bad economy was still the fault of President Bush. Joe, you guys have been in office for six months now. Stop passing the buck. Oh yeah, and stop throwing away our money.

2) The Sotomayor appointment: Yes, everyone knew Obama would pick a liberal judge. And Judge Sotomayor is very, very liberal. But it was plainly obvious to almost everyone that he was basically making an affirmative action pick, trying to cover as many bases as possible: Female? Check. Hispanic? Check. Before she was picked, the leaks were rampant from the administration that the president would pick a woman, probably a Hispanic one. That is just sloppy. I am not saying that Sotomayor is unqualified—she appears to be a very smart woman even though I disagree with her political views—I am just saying that it was plainly obvious that the White House didn't set out to pick the most qualified candidate, or even the most qualified liberal candidate, just one to make certain target audiences happy.

        

America is 233 years old and going strong. Let us not forget that, despite all the haters abroad and apologists at home, America remains the guiding force for freedom throughout the world and has a long and proud history of standing up to tyranny that no other nation can even hope to rival. So be proud to be an American today and everyday.

...<< MORE >>

The Left in Washington has become increasingly emboldened after the massive expansion of government intervention in the economy under the Obama administration. First, Uncle Sam began taking over banks. Next it was auto companies. Now, uber-liberal extraordinaire Barney Frank is proposing to legislate compensation for corporate executives in companies, regardless of whether that company has accepted federal bailout money.

Frank claims that the current financial crisis was prompted in large part by excessive executive compensation. That assertion is absolutely baseless and Frank provides no statistics or evidence to support his claims. What's most troubling is that Frank believes that ...<< MORE >>

I was stunned today to read an article by a columnist at the reliably left-of-center Newsweek that actually—gasp!--called out the mainstream media for its fawning coverage of Obama. That columnist is Robert Samuelson. I haven't been a regular reader of Newsweek since it took a decidedly left turn politically several years ago, so I was shocked to see that the magazine allowed someone to deviate from the liberal schema in its pages (or virtual pages). The column is an excellent and fair-minded critique of the dangers posed when the media loses its objectivity:

WASHINGTON — The Obama ...<< MORE >>