• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Republican Primary Scorecard

2012 Republican Delegates (GOP Popular Vote)

(1,144 Needed To Win)
 
Delegate Count

State Date Delegates   Romney Gingrich Santorum Paul Delegate Allocation Open/Closed
Total - 2,286   65 23 6 3 - -
Iowa Jan 3 28   6 0 6 0 Non-Binding Caucus Closed
New Hampshire Jan 10 12*   7 0 0 3 Proportional Primary Open
South Carolina Jan 21 25*   2 23 0 0 Winner Take All Primary1 Open
Florida Jan 31 50*   50 0 0 0 Winner Take All Primary Closed
Nevada Feb 4 28   - - - - Proportional Caucus1 Closed
Maine Feb 4 24   - - - - Non-Binding Caucus Closed
Minnesota Feb 7 40   - - - - Non-Binding Caucus Open
Colorado Feb 7 36   - - - - Non-Binding Caucus Closed
Michigan Feb 28 30*   - - - - Hybrid Primary2 Closed
Arizona Feb 28 29   - - - - Winner Take All Primary Closed
Washington Mar 3 43   - - - - Non-Binding Caucus Closed
Georgia Mar 6 76   - - - - Proportional Primary1 Open
Ohio Mar 6 66   - - - - Proportional Primary1,3 Open
Tennessee Mar 6 58   - - - - Proportional Primary1,3 Open
Virginia Mar 6 49   - - - - Hybrid Primary2,3 Open
Oklahoma Mar 6 43   - - - - Proportional Primary1,3 Closed
Massachusetts Mar 6 41   - - - - Proportional Primary1 Open
Idaho Mar 6 32   - - - - Non-Binding Caucus Closed
Wyoming Mar 6 29*   - - - - Non-Binding Caucus Closed
North Dakota Mar 6 28   - - - - Non-Binding Caucus Closed
Alaska Mar 6 27   - - - - Proportional Caucus Closed
Vermont Mar 6 17   - - - - Hybrid Primary2 Open
Kansas Mar 10 40   - - - - Hybrid Primary2 Closed
Virgin Islands Mar 10 9   - - - - Non-Binding Caucus Closed
Alabama Mar 13 50   - - - - Proportional Primary3 Open
Mississippi Mar 13 40   - - - - Proportional Primary1 Open
Hawaii Mar 13 20   - - - - Proportional Caucus1 Closed
American Samoa Mar 13 9   - - - - Proportional Caucus Open
Missouri Mar 17 52   - - - - Non-Binding Caucus Open
Puerto Rico Mar 18 23   - - - - Winner Take All Caucus Open
Illinois Mar 20 69   - - - - Direct Election Open
Louisiana Mar 24 46   - - - - Proportional Primary1 Closed
Texas Apr 3 155   - - - - Proportional Primary1,3 Open
Wisconsin Apr 3 42   - - - - Winner Take All Primary1 Open
Maryland Apr 3 37   - - - - Winner Take All Primary1 Closed
District of Columbia Apr 3 19   - - - - Winner Take All Primary Closed
New York Apr 24 95   - - - - Proportional Primary3 Closed
Pennsylvania Apr 24 72   - - - - Direct Election Closed
Connecticut Apr 24 28   - - - - Hybrid Primary2,3 Closed
Rhode Island Apr 24 19   - - - - Proportional Primary Open
Delaware Apr 24 17   - - - - Winner Take All Primary Closed
North Carolina May 8 55   - - - - Proportional Primary Open
Indiana May 8 46   - - - - Hybrid Primary/Caucus1 Open
West Virginia May 8 31   - - - - Direct Election Open
Nebraska May 15 35   - - - - Non-Binding Primary Open
Oregon May 15 28   - - - - Proportional Primary1 Closed
Kentucky May 22 45   - - - - Proportional Primary1 Closed
Arkansas May 22 36   - - - - Proportional Primary Open
California Jun 5 172   - - - - Winner Take All Primary1 Closed
New Jersey Jun 5 50   - - - - Winner Take All Primary1 Open
South Dakota Jun 5 28   - - - - Proportional Primary Closed
Montana Jun 5 26   - - - - Non-Binding Primary Closed
New Mexico Jun 5 23   - - - - Proportional Primary Closed
Utah Jun 26 40   - - - - Winner Take All Primary Open
Unpledged RNC - 0   - - - - Proportional Open

1 Delegates are awarded by district and statewide

2 Some delegates awarded by district and statewide, some proportionately, some winner-take-all

3 Election becomes winner-take-all if a candidate meets a certain threshold (usually 50%)

* States have been penalized half their delegates                                   (from realclearpolitics)

What Happens to People Marxist Bioethicists Deem not Useful?

Shock Article:   Bioethicists Suggest Killing

Someone With ‘No Autonomy Left’

Is Not Morally Wrong

(Article sent by Lisa Rich in California without reference to its sourse.)

What has Glenn Beck so fired up that he said on his radio show “If this doesn’t wake your a** up this morning, then nothing will?” How about this quote from prominent bioethicists comparing killing a human being to pulling weeds from a garden.
 
Two bioethicists — one from Duke University, the other from the National Institute of Health — bring up the question “What makes killing wrong?” in the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Using their definition of killing, the authors conclude if the person is “universally and irreversibly disabled” and has “no abilities to lose” then killing them to take organs for donation in order to save the lives of others should not be considered morally wrong.
 
 
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a professor of practical ethics from Duke, and Franklin Miller, a senior faculty member in the NIH Department of Bioethics, state in their abstract ”What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities.“ They argue that if no abilities remain then the ”dead donor rule,” which is the ethical practice that a person must be declared dead before removing vital organs, should apply to patients whose hearts have stopped and are being removed from a respirator.
 
This discussion has been ongoing for several years and continues with this article. BioEdge, a publication discussing bioethical news, brings a few segments from the subscription-only journal in which Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller publish their opinion. BioEdge reports that the authors are seeking to make a case for organ donation after cardiac death when a person is taken off of a respirator. Once off the respirator, the person’s organs would be immediately harvested, but even at this point, BioEdge states, Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller believe the person is not yet dead because there is the possibility that his or her heart could start beating again.

Miller has written on this topic before for the New England Journal of Medicine. Here’s some of what was written in his co-authored piece from 2008 “The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation:”

Over the past few years, our reliance on the dead donor rule has again been challenged, this time by the emergence of donation after cardiac death as a pathway for organ donation. Under protocols for this type of donation, patients who are not brain-dead but who are undergoing an orchestrated withdrawal of life support are monitored for the onset of cardiac arrest. In typical protocols, patients are pronounced dead 2 to 5 minutes after the onset of asystole (on the basis of cardiac criteria), and their organs are expeditiously removed for transplantation. Although everyone agrees that many patients could be resuscitated after an interval of 2 to 5 minutes, advocates of this approach to donation say that these patients can be regarded as dead because a decision has been made not to attempt resuscitation.
In the more recent Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller article, BioEdge reports the authors as stating that “these patients are not known to be dead at the time of organ procurement.”
 
Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller argue that the dead donor rule is already being violated in many cases and that recognizing this violation and stopping organ donation in these conditions would drastically reduce an already limited number of donor organs for those in need. They suggest sidestepping this issue by rethinking the “norm of killing.” BioEdge has more from the authors:
“[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.”
[...]
 
“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”
BioEdge clarifies that the authors seeks to better define just what is considered killing. It adds that the authors suggest killing someone with “no autonomy left” cannot be considered “unfair” or disrespectful because it “if it does her no harm.”
 
While Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller make this argument, BioEdge reports in a separate article that several doctors have called for a moratorium on donated organs in the event of cardiac death until the issue is resolved from an ethical standpoint. The doctors state this opinion in the journal Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine.
In the abstract, these doctors calling for a moratorium write:
Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been “worked out” and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule.
[...]
 
Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are “straw-man arguments,” such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate.
The issue, however, isn’t an isolated incident. The Blaze has recently published articles about a disabled man in the U.K. who is seeking the “right” to die and a 3-year-old whose parents were told she couldn’t have kidney transplant because she was “mentally retarded.” And last year, we posted the disturbing video of a British advice columnist who said if a child were disabled a loving mother would “put a pillow over its face” to smother it. Watch that clip below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geNMg04Bxlo

The more women in a population who will not  bear children, and the more Marxist a society, the more popular infanticide and other murders will become.   As in Orwell’s novel, “1984″, the ‘useless’ in a Marxist society are done away with and never heard from again……at the whim of feelings.

The Delivery of a Fawn…….Another Miracle of God’s Beauties

Dear Prager Friends.   I just now came across this beautiful video of one of God’s beauties  of life, the Delivery of a Fawn.     It reminded me of one of the most inspiring sights of my life some fifteen or twenty years ago which occurred in my own home landscape garden one Spring.

I am by profession, a landscape gardener and have planted and nursed a beautiful setting  on my homegrounds since I and  my family  moved  here in 1974.   

One morning that decade or two    ago  shortly after dawn,  I was walking along a path slightly downhill rather dreamily   to a pond to  plant some perennials along its  path.   It was a dead quiet time of a gorgeous Minnesota  morning.

I heard  a  srange noise…..a kind of a whine,   a ‘hhheeeeeeeheeee’ to my left.   

Wow!  Here, nearly next to me was this full grown doe standing  among some shrubs blending into the scenery  without moving a muscle!   She was holding her ground!   

I was shocked!….. She repeated her noise, and again  didn’t retreat and run off  as would always be the deer habit on my grounds.  

She was looking to my right and appeared more puzzled than afraid.    And then I spied what caused her not to run.    Still mostly in its placenta sac, lying among the garden leaves, was this peculiar object poking and poking.  

I have never talked to this particular  kind of  deer before, except to yell, “SCRAM….GET OUT OF HERE!” when one  would chew on my yews.    This meeting was different.    I appologized out loud profusely to her, and slowly backed up along the path along which  I had arrived.

I was afraid she might abandon ‘the thing’.    That  this was a fawn poking around, was clear.  But to me,  it was still  ’a thing’.  

 I backed up to snoop  from behind a small oak, to see  what  ‘mom’ would do.

I was thrilled as she became calm and slowly moved toward her ‘baby’.    She chewed away the remaining sac and began licking its content which was still poking its legs here and there.  

In a few minutes ‘the thing’   stood up and wobbled  just as you see it on the video.    Mom licked a bit more as baby moved left and then right.   After another few minutes baby, now fawn,  started looking cocky and proud, and after a nudge from mom’s nose…..they took off together through my grounds  as if they had been friends  for years.  

Click below:

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/adorable-newborn-baby-deer/1jrab2kry?q=Deer&rel=msn&from=en-us_msnhp&form=msnrll

John Podhoretz’s Jewell of an Article: Boy Scout, “Mitt Passes the Trash-Newt Test”

The boy scout gets rough

Mitt passes the trash-Newt test

by John Podhoretz    at the New York Post:

“Newt Gingrich — a man who once blamed American liberalism for the Columbine massacre and said that a woman’s murder of her own children in 1993 was a call to the country to vote Republican — is, frankly, shocked by the injustice of Mitt Romney’s harsh attacks on him.

A sputtering Gingrich said Sunday, “I don’t know how you debate a person in the civil, being civil, when he stands there and just blatantly doesn’t tell the truth.” The former speaker seemed to think this complaint against Romney would help him with Florida’s voters. In fact, it probably helped seal his doom today in the Sunshine State’s GOP primary.

For just as Gingrich discovered in the course of his campaign that he needed to appear “civil” because he had to demonstrate qualities of comportment people didn’t know he had, the clean-cut Boy Scout Ken-doll candidate from Massachusetts needed to show his fellow Republicans that he could be mean, tough and merciless on the attack — that he could take it to his rival and best him.

Floridians are telling pollsters they are voting for Romney on grounds of “electability.” But what exactly will make a candidate “electable” against Barack Obama? After all, many of the South Carolinians who voted for Gingrich did so because they believed him more “electable.”

They believed this because they saw a quality in Gingrich they thought would be necessary for the general election: The strength to give Obama hell in debates, to out-argue him and his media Quislings, and to be an unabashed conservative in a country in which self-described conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1.

In the two Florida debates, and in the nasty ads Romney is running against Gingrich, Romney finally showed Republican voters he was willing and able to go to the mattresses, as they say in “The Godfather.”

Wanting your party’s candidate to demonstrate an instinct for the jugular is a leadership quality that would never turn up in polling data or in focus-group discussions. People know better than to say they want to know their guy can be an SOB when necessary, just as most politicians know it’s a problem if they come across as an unmitigated SOB.

But the plain truth is that the willingness to confront a rival directly while looking him straight in the eye and saying some pretty harsh things, and the ability to withstand the counterattack and keep on with the assault, are qualities of toughness and perseverance every successful major politician must demonstrate.

After all, if Romney isn’t tough enough to take Gingrich down, how can he hope to do the same to Barack Obama, who will have somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion to use to blacken the name and reputation of the eventual Republican nominee?

Gingrich’s problem is that to widen his appeal, he had to tone down his nastiness (except when it came to the news media). Thus, he had no useful countermeasures against Romney’s attacks in the two Florida debates — and the Boy from Bain saw the weakness and would not let up.

In the 17 preceding debates, Romney had shown fluency, a command of the issues, an ability to spin words like cotton candy to obscure his problematic flip-flopping . . . and absolutely no spine whatsoever.

By making it clear he would do what he had to do to win — by demonstrating to Republicans he was not only made of money but that there was some steel there too — Romney almost certainly clinched his nomination.”

jpodhoretz@gmail.com

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_boy_scout_gets_rough_ErkJwHYD2l3CPWtakbX7oL#ixzz1l3s5ioZo

Obama ‘Thinskin’ noticed by Governor Bobby Jindal, too

Arizona Governor Brewer isn’t along in her  ’trouble’ with a  visit from Obama “Thinskin”.   Bobby Jindal admitted the following in an article  at realclearpolitics:

Jindal On Brewer, Obama Incident: “Brought Back Memories”

“It brought back memories. It seems hard to believe it was almost two years ago,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said about President Obama’s visit to the state after the BP oil spill.

On “FOX & Friends,” Jindal said Obama pulled him aside on the tarmac and engaged him in conversation, expressing frustration in a move that he called “obviously staged.”

“He grabs me by the arm, takes me aside. Here’s the strange thing: I thought he’d be angry about the oil spill, the lack of resources; I thought he’d get down there and say, ‘Look governor, we’re going to do everything we can to work together.’ Instead, he was upset he was going to look bad; he was worried about some routine letter we had already sent to his administration, nothing important.”

“I was amazed at two things: one, that he was mad about the wrong things, and two, that he was so thin-skinned,” Jindal said.

“I wanted him to be the president of the country, and instead he was playing political theatrics.”

Dennis Prager: The Tyranny of America’s Secular Fanaticism

They Have Islamist Fanatics, We Have Secularist Fanatics

by Dennis Prager        at   dennisprager.com
 
“The Muslim world is threatened by religious fanaticism. The Western world is threatened by secular fanaticism. Both seek to dominate society and to use state power to do so. Both seek to eliminate the Other — for Islamic fanatics, that means non-Muslim religions and secularism; for secular fanatics, it means Christianity and virtually any public invoking of God. The Islamists impose Sharia law; the American Civil Liberties Union and the left generally impose secular law. The Taliban wiped out public vestiges of Buddhism in Afghanistan; the ACLU and its allies seek to wipe out public vestiges of Christianity in America — as it did, for example, in Los Angeles County, when it successfully pressured the County Board of Supervisors to remove the tiny cross from the county seal. A city and county founded by Catholics — hence the name “The Angels” — was forced to stop commemorating its founders because they were religious.This fanaticism has been on display most recently in the state of Rhode Island. This past Christmas, the governor, Lincoln Chafee, renamed the state Christmas tree a “holiday tree.” Though Christmas is a national holiday, for the secular fanatic, anything Christian — or, as we shall see, anything that relates to religion or God — must be banned from public life.

The latest expression of the secular equivalent of Islamism is the lawsuit brought against a Rhode Island high school, Cranston High School West, for allowing a banner, written by a seventh grader in 1963, to remain hanging on one of the school walls. An atheist student, along with the ACLU, brought the lawsuit and a judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for it to hang in a public school.

To appreciate how fanatical the student, the ACLU and the ruling are, you have to know the words on the banner. So here they are:

(SET ITAL) Our Heavenly Father

Grant us each day the desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, to be honest with ourselves as well as with others. Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. Teach us the value of true friendship. Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School west.

Amen (END ITAL)

The idea that this prayer violates the Constitution of the United States is as much a mockery of the Constitution as it is of common sense. Only a fanatic can welcome the removal of such a non-denominational, sweet, moral exhortation from a high school wall. America is indeed as endangered by the ACLU as the Muslim world is by Islamists.

Defenders of the judge’s decision point to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1962 banning state-mandated prayer in public schools. The parallel is invalid. No student is asked, let alone compelled, to state what is on the Rhode Island high school banner. But arguments citing the Supreme Court ruling serve only to confirm my argument: that secular fanaticism has been taking over America. The New York State prayer that the Warren Court outlawed 50 years ago was as non-sectarian, as morally uplifting and as inoffensive as the Rhode Island prayer.

Here is it is in its entirety:

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

After reading that one sentence, it is intellectually dishonest to maintain that the Warren court’s decision was not an expression of fanaticism. One would have to deny that there could even be any such thing as secular fanaticism. Indeed, if it could have, the Warren Court would have declared the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional for its citing the Creator.

It is no wonder, then, that Alaska Airlines announced last week that it would no longer dispense along with meals its famous little cards with a verse from Psalms.

There are Americans who think that we are a better society without a state Christmas tree, and without high school students seeing a prayer to be kind human beings, and without the Alaska Airlines attempt to elevate American life in a small — and, again, non-denominational — way.

But the Islamist thinks he is improving Muslim life, too, of course.”

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently “Happiness Is a Serious Problem” (HarperCollins). His website is DennisPrager.com.

The Dennis Prager Show is carried by Salem Radio, 1280 AM  in the Twin Cities, Monday through Friday from 11AM to 2PM.

You man also find the Dennis Prager Store at dennisprager.com.

Jonathan Last: The Deeply Flawed Obama…..What the Flawed American Press won’t Report

American Narcissus

The vanity of Barack Obama

by Jonathan V. Last    at  the  Weekly Standard                                                sent by Brian Ross:

“Why has Barack Obama failed so spectacularly? Is he too dogmatically liberal or too pragmatic? Is he a socialist, or an anticolonialist, or a philosopher-president? Or is it possible that Obama’s failures stem from something simpler: vanity. Politicians as a class are particularly susceptible to mirror-gazing. But Obama’s vanity is overwhelming. It defines him, his politics, and his presidency.

It’s revealed in lots of little stories. There was the time he bragged about how one of his campaign volunteers, who had tragically died of breast cancer, “insisted she’s going to be buried in an Obama T-shirt.” There was the Nobel acceptance speech where he conceded, “I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war” (the emphasis is mine). There was the moment during the 2008 campaign when Obama appeared with a seal that was a mash-up of the Great Seal of the United States and his own campaign logo (with its motto Vero Possumus, “Yes we Can” in Latin). Just a few weeks ago, Obama was giving a speech when the actual presidential seal fell from the rostrum. “That’s all right,” he quipped. “All of you know who I am.” Oh yes, Mr. President, we certainly do.

My favorite is this line from page 160 of The Audacity of Hope:

I find comfort in the fact that the longer I’m in politics the less nourishing popularity becomes, that a striving for power and rank and fame seems to betray a poverty of ambition, and that I am answerable mainly to the steady gaze of my own conscience.

So popularity and fame once nourished him, but now his ambition is richer and he’s answerable not, like some presidents, to the Almighty, but to the gaze of his personal conscience. Which is steady. The fact that this sentence appears in the second memoir of a man not yet 50 years old—and who had been in national politics for all of two years—is merely icing.

People have been noticing Obama’s vanity for a long time. In 2008, one of his Harvard Law classmates, the entertainment lawyer Jackie Fuchs, explained what Obama was like during his school days: “One of our classmates once famously noted that you could judge just how pretentious someone’s remarks in class were by how high they ranked on the ‘Obamanometer,’ a term that lasted far longer than our time at law school. Obama didn’t just share in class—he pontificated. He knew better than everyone else in the room, including the teachers. ”

The story of Obama’s writing career is an object lesson in how our president’s view of himself shapes his interactions with the world around him. In 1990, Obama was wrapping up his second year at Harvard Law when the New York Times ran a profile of him on the occasion of his becoming the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. A book agent in New York named Jane Dystel read the story and called up the young man, asking if he’d be interested in writing a book. Like any 29-year-old, he wasn’t about to turn down money. He promptly accepted a deal with Simon & Schuster’s Poseidon imprint—reportedly in the low six-figures—to write a book about race relations.

Obama missed his deadline. No matter. His agent quickly secured him another contract, this time with Times Books. And a $40,000 advance. Not bad for an unknown author who had already blown one deal, writing about a noncommercial subject.

By this point Obama had left law school, and academia was courting him. The University of Chicago Law School approached him; although they didn’t have any specific needs, they wanted to be in the Barack Obama business. As Douglas Baird, the head of Chicago’s appointments committee, would later explain, “You look at his background—Harvard Law Review president, magna cum laude, and he’s African American. This is a no-brainer hiring decision at the entry level of any law school in the country.” Chicago invited Obama to come in and teach just about anything he wanted. But Obama wasn’t interested in a professor’s life. Instead, he told them that he was writing a book—about voting rights. The university made him a fellow, giving him an office and a paycheck to keep him going while he worked on this important project.

In case you’re keeping score at home, there was some confusion as to what book young Obama was writing. His publisher thought he was writing about race relations. His employer thought he was writing about voting rights law. But Obama seems to have never seriously considered either subject. Instead, he decided that his subject would be himself. The 32-year-old was writing a memoir.

Obama came clean to the university first. He waited until his fellowship was halfway over—perhaps he was concerned that his employers might not like the bait-and-switch. He needn’t have worried. Baird still hoped that Obama would eventually join the university’s faculty (he had already begun teaching a small classload as a “senior lecturer”). “It was a good deal for us,” Baird explained, “because he was a good teaching prospect and we wanted him around.”

And it all worked out in the end. The book Obama eventually finished was Dreams from My Father. It didn’t do well initially, but nine years later, after his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention made him a star, it sold like gangbusters. Obama got rich. And famous. The book became the springboard for his career in national politics.

Only it didn’t quite work out for everybody. Obama left the University of Chicago, never succumbing to their offers of a permanent position in their hallowed halls. Simon & Schuster, which had taken a chance on an unproven young writer, got burned for a few thousand bucks. And Jane Dystel, who’d plucked him out of the pages of the New York Times and got him the deal to write the book that sped his political rise? As soon as Obama was ready to negotiate the contract for his second book—the big-money payday—he dumped her and replaced her with super-agent Robert Barnett.

We risk reading too much into these vignettes—after all, our president is a mansion with many rooms and it would be foolish to reduce him to pure ego. Yet the vignettes are so numerous. For instance, a few years ago Obama’s high school basketball coach told ABC News how, as a teenager, Obama always badgered him for more playing time, even though he wasn’t the best player on the team—or even as good as he thought he was. Everyone who has ever played team sports has encountered the kid with an inflated sense of self. That’s common. What’s rare is the kid who feels entitled enough to nag the coach about his minutes. Obama was that kid. His enthusiasm about his abilities and his playing time extended into his political life. In 2004, Obama explained to author David Mendell how he saw his future as a national political figure: “I’m LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game.” After just a couple of months in the Senate, Obama jumped the Democratic line and started asking voters to make him president.

Yet you don’t have to delve deep into armchair psychology to see how Obama’s vanity has shaped his presidency. In January 2009 he met with congressional leaders to discuss the stimulus package. The meeting was supposed to foster bipartisanship. Senator Jon Kyl questioned the plan’s mixture of spending and tax cuts. Obama’s response to him was, “I won.” A year later Obama held another meeting to foster bipartisanship for his health care reform plan. There was some technical back-and-forth about Republicans not having the chance to properly respond within the constraints of the format because President Obama had done some pontificating, as is his wont. Obama explained, “There was an imbalance on the opening statements because”—here he paused, self-satisfiedly—“I’m the president. And so I made, uh, I don’t count my time in terms of dividing it evenly.”

There are lots of times when you get the sense that Obama views the powers of the presidency as little more than a shadow of his own person. When he journeyed to Copenhagen in October 2009 to pitch Chicago’s bid for the Olympics, his speech to the IOC was about—you guessed it: “Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night,” he told the committee, “people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of .  .  . ” and away he went. A short while later he was back in Copenhagen for the climate change summit. When things looked darkest, he personally commandeered the meeting to broker a “deal.” Which turned out to be worthless. In January 2010, Obama met with nervous Democratic congressmen to assure them that he wasn’t driving the party off a cliff. Confronted with worries that 2010 could be a worse off-year election than 1994, Obama explained to the professional politicians, “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.”

In the midst of the BP oil spill last summer, Obama explained, “My job right now is just to make sure that everybody in the Gulf understands this is what I wake up to in the morning and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about: the spill.” Read that again: The president thinks that the job of the president is to make certain the citizens correctly understand what’s on the president’s mind.

Obama’s vanity is even more jarring when paraded in the foreign arena. In April, Poland suffered a national tragedy when its president, first lady, and a good portion of the government were killed in a plane crash. Obama decided not to go to the funeral. He played golf instead. Though maybe it’s best that he didn’t make the trip. When he journeyed to Great Britain to meet with the queen he gave her an amazing gift: an iPod loaded with recordings of his speeches and pictures from his inauguration.

On November 9, 2009, Europe celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was kind of a big deal. They may not mention the Cold War in schools much these days, but it pitted the Western liberal order against a totalitarian ideology in a global struggle. In this the United States was the guarantor of liberty and peace for the West; had we faltered, no corner of the world would have been safe from Soviet domination. 

President Obama has a somewhat different reading. He explains: “The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.” Pretty magnanimous of the Soviets to let the long twilight struggle end peacefully like that, especially after all we did to provoke them.

So Obama doesn’t know much about the Cold War. Which is probably why he didn’t think the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall was all that important. When the leaders of Europe got together to commemorate it, he decided not to go to that, either. But he did find time to record a video message, which he graciously allowed the Europeans to air during the ceremony.

In his video, Obama ruminated for a few minutes on the grand events of the 20th century, the Cold War itself, and the great lesson we all should take from this historic passing: “Few would have foreseen .  .  . that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.” The fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War, and the freedom of all humanity—it’s great stuff. Right up there with the election of Barack Obama. 

All presidents are hostage to self-confidence. But not since Babe Ruth grabbed a bat and wagged his fat finger at Wrigley’s center-field wall has an American politician called his shot like Barack Obama. He announced his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois, on the steps where Abraham Lincoln gave his “house divided” speech. He mentioned Lincoln continually during the 2008 campaign. After he vanquished John McCain he passed out copies of Team of Rivals, a book about Lincoln’s cabinet, to his senior staff. At his inauguration, he chose to be sworn into office using Lincoln’s Bible. At the inaugural luncheon following the ceremony, he requested that the food—each dish of which was selected as a “tribute” to Lincoln—be served on replicas of Lincoln’s china. At some point in January 2009 you wanted to grab Obama by the lapels and tell him—We get it! You’re the Rail Splitter! If we promise to play along, will you keep the log cabin out of the Rose Garden? 

It’s troubling that a fellow whose electoral rationale was that he edited the Harvard Law Review and wrote a couple of memoirs was comparing himself to the man who saved the Union. But it tells you all you need to know about what Obama thinks of his political gifts and why he’s unperturbed about having led his party into political disaster in the midterms. He assumes that he’ll be able to reverse the political tide once he becomes the issue, in the presidential race in 2012. As he said to Harry Reid after the majority leader congratulated him on one particularly fine oration, “I have a gift, Harry.”

But Obama’s faith in his abilities extends beyond mere vote-getting. Buried in a 2008 New Yorker piece by Ryan Lizza about the Obama campaign was this gob-smacking passage:

Obama said that he liked being surrounded by people who expressed strong opinions, but he also said, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” After Obama’s first debate with McCain, on September 26th, [campaign political director Patrick] Gaspard sent him an e-mail. “You are more clutch than Michael Jordan,” he wrote. Obama replied, “Just give me the ball.”

In fairness to Obama, maybe he is a better speechwriter than his speechwriters. After all, his speechwriter was a 27-year-old, and the most affecting part of Obama’s big 2008 stump speech was recycled from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, with whom he shared a campaign strategist. But it’s instructive that Obama thinks he knows “more about policies on any particular issue” than his policy directors. The rate of growth of the mohair subsidy? The replacement schedule for servers at the NORAD command center? The relationship between annual rainfall in northeast Nevada and water prices in Las Vegas?

What Scott Fitzgerald once said about Hollywood is true of the American government: It can be understood only dimly and in flashes; there are no more than a handful of men who have ever been able to keep the entire equation in their heads. Barack Obama had worked in the federal government for all of four years. He was not one of those men. More important, however, is that as president he shouldn’t be the chief wonk, speechwriter, and political director.

David Remnick delivers a number of insights about Obama in his book The Bridge. For instance, Valerie Jarrett—think of her as the president’s Karen Hughes—tells Remnick that Obama is often bored with the world around him. “I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually,” Jarrett says. “So what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that they had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy.” Jarrett concludes, “He’s been bored to death his whole life.”

With one or two possible exceptions, that is. Remnick reports that “Jarrett was quite sure that one of the few things that truly engaged him fully before going to the White House was writing Dreams from My Father.” So the only job Barack Obama ever had that didn’t bore him was writing about Barack Obama. But wait, there’s more.

David Axelrod—he’s Obama’s Karl Rove—told Remnick that “Barack hated being a senator.” Remnick went on:

Washington was a grander stage than Springfield, but the frustrations of being a rookie in a minority party were familiar. Obama could barely conceal his frustration with the torpid pace of the Senate. His aides could sense his frustration and so could his colleagues. “He was so bored being a senator,” one Senate aide said.

Obama’s friend and law firm colleague Judd Miner agreed. “The reality,” Miner told Remnick, “was that during his first two years in the U.S. Senate, I think, he was struggling; it wasn’t nearly as stimulating as he expected.” But even during his long, desolate exile as a senator, Obama was able to find a task that satisfied him. Here’s Remnick again: “The one project that did engage Obama fully was work on The Audacity of Hope. He procrastinated for a long time and then, facing his deadline, wrote nearly a chapter a week.” Your tax dollars at work.

Looking at this American Narcissus, it’s easy to be hammered into a stupor by the accumulated acts of vanity. Oh look, we think to ourselves, there’s our new president accepting his Nobel Peace Prize. There’s the president likening his election to the West’s victory in the Cold War. There’s the commander in chief bragging about his March Madness picks.

Yet it’s important to remember that our presidents aren’t always this way. When he accepted command of the Revolutionary forces, George Washington said, 

I feel great distress, from a consciousness that my abilities and military experience may not be equal to the extensive and important Trust. .  .  . I beg it may be remembered, by every Gentleman in the room, that I, this day, declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the Command I am honored with.

Accepting the presidency, Washington was even more reticent. Being chosen to be president, he said, “could not but overwhelm with despondence one who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.”

In his biography of John Quincy Adams, Robert Remini noted that Adams was not an especially popular fellow. Yet on one of the rare occasions when he was met with adoring fans, “he told crowds that gathered to see and hear him to go home and attend to their private duties.”

And Obama? In light of the present state of his presidency, let’s look back at his most famous oration:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

The speech was given on June 3, 2008, and the epoch-making historical event to which “this moment” refers throughout is Barack Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.”

A senior writer at The Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last covered the Obama campaign in 2008.


Mitt Romney Still Edges Obama in Swing States…..HE CAN WIN, DEAR REPUBLICANS!

Gallup: Romney edges Obama in swing states

posted  by Ed Morrissey    at HotAir:

 
“Mitt Romney edges Barack Obama among registered voters in swing states, according to a new Gallup/USA Today pollBy “edge,” I mean barely edges — by a single point.  Even with that, though, Romney fares far better than his competitors in the same polling:

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney essentially ties Barack Obama in the nation’s key battlegrounds, a USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States survey finds, while rival Newt Gingrich now trails the president by a decisive 14 percentage points.

That reflects a significant decline by the former House speaker since early December, when he led Obama by three points. …

In a head-to-head race, Romney leads Obama by a statistically insignificant percentage point, 48%-47%, the survey finds.

But Obama leads Gingrich, 54%-40%. The president’s standing against him has risen nine points since early December; Gingrich has fallen by eight.

Gingrich fares less well than Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who trails Obama by seven points, 50%-43%, and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, who also trails by seven points, 51%-44%.

As I’ve written before, this is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison.  While the GOP continues its primary slugfest, it’s natural to have some voters refuse to back primary candidates against Obama as a form of principle protest, at least for the moment.  Democrats are united behind Barack Obama and have no such reservations.

The key to this poll is the fact that Obama as incumbent falls below 50%, especially in a poll of registered rather than likely voters, regardless of which head-to-head matchup it appears.  That’s a soft re-elect number — not fatal to re-election at that level, but a problem that could grow after the Republicans actually pick their nominee.  Since likely voter samples tend to produce less favorable results for Democrats, that problem is probably worse than it seems at the moment.

Gingrich still has a problem, though.  Even though he has regained his top-tier status in the Republican primary, he seems to have alienated a lot of voters to have a 17-point swing in the gap over just six or seven weeks.  Given the tone of the campaign and especially Gingrich’s angry attacks over the past week, that may not be a big surprise.  What might play well with the Tea Party base won’t play well in a general election, and the polling results of the last few days indicates that it doesn’t play well with the Tea Party base, either.

That being said, scroll all the way down to look at the sample sizes in the states Gallup polled.  The overall poll is of 737 registered voters, which is a respectable sample size for a national poll, and should be as well for a subset of a national poll.  Some states in this sample only got as few as 11 or 17 voters included in the survey, though.  The participation seems to be proportional to state population sizes, but I think this poll would have benefited from a healthier sample from some of the swing states involved.”

Reagan Humor versus Obama Arrogance

Perhaps it was the Irish in his blood that turned Ronald Reagan to humor.   Reagan loved America.  Unlike our present president, President Reagan liked  people, and showed this often and openly.    He also enjoyed laughing at himself.

Mr. Obama is a crippled man unable to lead the country because of his inability to like his fellow Americans.

The second of the scenarios President Reagan presented in the video below, was the beginning of his first State of the Union address to the Nation and Congress.    Compare the tone and content of the  introduction  with the  most recent State of the Union  address given by current president, Barack Hussein Obama fannng the fires of racial and class warfare to bolster his re-election.

In the first setting Mr. Reagan described a condition of service in the USSR’s Marxist government, in which a citizen, who miraculously or illegally amassed enough money to purchas an automobile from the government and permission to own one, would have to pay up and then wait  years to receive the vehicle he had paid for.    Mr. Obama favors Marxism government in which the State manages citizen lives to create forced equality among citizens.

The third occasion occurred at one of the National debates former Vice President Mondale during the 1984 campaign for the presidency.

The cold, distant, snotty, arrogant Obama is an entirely foreign  ideologue  occupying the White House when ompared to any previous American president.    He is the first to encourage  class and racial  division among us.

As Dennis Prager reminds his fellow Americans:  “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”

Do you wonder why Ronald Reagan became so popular?   Click below for a few of the reasons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oskP72Xqoio&feature=related

Hugh Hewitt: Romney Will Beat Obama, “the thin skinned, self-absorbed ideologue”

HUGH HEWITT  from the Washington Examiner:

The following is from an opinion piece at the Examiner, “Why the GOP Primaries Didn’t Matter in 1952, 1980, 2012″:

Mitt Romney will beat Barack Obama because a majority of the country already knows that the president is an epic failure at his job, and a thin-skinned, self-absorbed ideologue to boot.

All the noise about Romney’s wealth and the nonsense about his “effective tax rate” won’t make a lick of difference to a voter afraid of losing his or her job or fearing for their children’s future.

All the left’s harrumphing about Bain just isn’t going matter to a country desperate for competence and character, discipline and the values of hard work, thrift and sacrifice.

Everybody already knows everything the Chicago gang is going to throw at Romney thanks to Newt. After the intensity of the nomination battle drains away, the focus will shift back to the president’s massive incompetence, and ho-him will be the response when yet another Democrat with talking points about Romney tries to evade the reality of an unemployment rate that have never been below 8 percent when the president promised it would never go above that level.

To his great credit, Newt hasn’t played the anti-Mormon card and the left certainly will, but that, too, is drained of its power after the campaign of 2008 and the pulverizing realities of the economic mismanagement of the past three years.

When Truman was forced from office, just as LBJ was, and when Carter and George H.W. Bush were denied second terms, the elections were about the overwhelming sense that the country needed a U-turn.

That’s what the cover on Time proclaimed when below the smiling picture of Reagan on its November 17, 1980, election “special edition” appeared the words “A Fresh Start.”

That is what November’s vote will be about as well, and the memories and relevance of the primary battles will be long gone. The GOP’s primary battles didn’t matter in 1952 or 1980, and they won’t matter in 2012.

Examiner Columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/01/why-gop-primaries-didnt-matter-1952-1980-and-2012/2148226#ixzz1kzchSkrt

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers