Neil Cavuto: Obama's Path to History as a one-termer?

Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto offers some interesting commentary on how the 2012 election may shape out. Ego is an interesting thing, as is the American electorate's willingness to get snookered. Given how slick and disciplined President Obama's 2008 campaign for president was, his preference for time on the golf course, as opposed to managing the nation, his wife's incredibly lavish and out-of-touch sense of vacation entitlement, his administration's indifference to the economic woes crushing large swaths of voters, and his avoidance of seeming pro-active on any issue other than socializing health-care, one must wonder how serious he is about running for a second term.

That being said, perhaps Obama has nailed something about American politics post Eisenhower. No president ever has a good second term. Kennedy got whacked before he could make it, Johnson failed so miserably he bowed-out as to avoid disgrace, Nixon resigned, Carter got trounced because his first term was a botched abortion, Reagan was plagued with shady underlings and memory lapses, Bush the Elder didn't deserve re-election on account of raising taxes, Clinton dragged this nation through tabloid-hell while doing nothing but revealing what a scum-bucket he is, and Bush the Younger couldn't deliver on anything of substance beyond offering successful surge in Iraq and watched the GOP rightfully implode.

Given his monumental vanity and ego, the werewolf is unsure how this comedic-farce will play itself out. However, perhaps Obama will do the nation a favor and push the nation that effective public-service is a better path overall than constantly thinking about the next election. Wishful thinking, methinks.

LA Gets Something Right!

The werewolf both loves and loves to hate his hometown of Los Angeles. For years, he has been aggravated by LA's petulance, arrogance, and vapidity. Nauseating traffic, throngs of unkempt peoples, oppressive city ordinances, and prohibitive living costs are just a few of the turn-offs radiating from the so-called City of Angels. However, LA has a pedestrian eating scene that is second to none (Pink's, Phillipe's, Langer's, Cantor's, The Larchmont Village Wine Shop, Roscoe's Chicken, to name a few folks), incredible people watching, amazing architecture, accommodating weather, and a diverse swath of enchanting neighborhoods tucked away in various pockets of urban jungle, certainly add to its charm. However, The Los Angeles Times has an amusing piece, "It's Unanimous, President's Visit Leaves LA Boiling," which brought a sincere and overdue smile to the werewolf's face. An excellent except:

"A Brentwood resident's two-mile jaunt took 45 minutes. An Echo Park couple who left home at 5:30 p.m. found their usual 20-minute drive west to Olympic and Rimpau boulevards took a whopping hour and 15 minutes. An attorney left his Miracle Mile-area office at 5:45 p.m. and sat unmoving in traffic for 45 minutes.

No matter their politics, Los Angeles residents found themselves united. "It was a beautiful thing," said Brentwood resident Myles Berkowitz, commiserating with his neighbors on Montana Avenue. "Young, old, black, white — everyone was pissed off.""

Hope and change, folks.

Desmund Tutu: Wishing Obama would Channel Bush on Africa

In a remarkable article published in yesterday's New York Times, Desmund Tutu, human rights legend and anti-apartheid luminary, publicly wonders why Obama is derelict on his pledges to Africa and the continent's struggle against the AIDS crisis. During the 2008 election, Obama's ties to Kenya were played ad nauseum, as if they somehow accentuated his already stunted credentials. The great irony that liberals can't seem to grasp, is that President Bush was the most Africa oriented President to every occupy the White House. Other legacies aside, that seems to be set in stone for the foreseeable future. When you've pissed off Desmond Tutu, and you can claim black African heritage and are the former poster-child for post-modern liberalism, you know you've lost some serious luster.

Obama: Broken promises and diplomatic incompotence

The shifting sands of international relations tend to see relationships defined by convenience and various short-to-medium term mutual objectives. Commerce, trade, defense, technology, mutual enemies, and even shameless posturing on issues such as human rights tend to define short term and mutually agreeable objectives that drive the relations between countries both positively and adversely.  During the Second World War, the United States and Britain shared a bed with the evil Stalin led Soviets to defeat the Nazis. In the 1970s the United States threw some tacit support the way of Red China to undermine the Soviet credibility and cause fissures within the global communist community. The apartheid regime in South Africa shamelessly threw their struggling allies in Ian Smith's Rhodesian regime under the bus, to get the west off their backs on a short-term basis. The fractious behavior of the French and vaginal attitudes of the Europeans in general display how weak the essence of the NATO alliance really is, especially in a post Warsaw-Pact and Soviet era. In the end, like a healthy and successful marriage, finding a truly dependable international relationship that transcends the short-term interests of convenience that normally define global diplomacy, is something sacred that should be be nurtured and cherished. 

There was this great myth pimped during 2008 election that America had a damaged reputation in the world on account of President Bush's robust diplomatic efforts. Certainly, segments of the retrogressive anachronistic European establishment and America's enemies have played this myth up, as their reflexive anti-Americanism would predict. Whatever your thoughts on that may be, and the werewolf treats such claims with skepticism, it is becoming tragically obvious that Obama has become more poisonous for America's international and diplomatic standing, then the previous occupant of the White House could ever hope to have been.

According to the Times of London:

"BRITAIN’S special relationship with the US — forged by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in the second world war — no longer exists, says a committee of influential MPs."

The article goes to talk about key domestic pressures and a mild backlash to Tony Blair's stewardship of Britain, yet it is no secret that the Obama administration has displayed a shocking ignorance, retardation, and frankly pathetic sense of tact when dealing with America's closest ally and spiritual forefather. Between returning the bust of Churchill, refusing to hold a joint meeting of state, giving the Queen of bunch of DVDs coded for American electronics along with an iPod loaded with Obama's speeches (vain fucker), and rhetorically undermining the sacred relationship at every corner from dealing to Argentina to speaking about the nature of the relationship itself. The American people are bearing witness to the deliberate and intentional disintegration of one of the greatest historical legacies diplomacy ever known. The severe costs are obvious, yet, the benefits this are completely lost on the werewolf. Like being estranged from your closest family and friends, it saddens him to realize that America be cast adrift from the only relationship that potentially transcended the bullshit of normal inter-state relations to fill the myopic left-wing ignorance of the current POTUS. (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also fit in this mold, but they are lesser players.) Although not without itself nuances and challenges; few things can beat a common language, legal heritage, diplomatic and historical ties forged in the heat of the greatest wars ever fought, along with key cultural compatibilities make the USA-UK something worth preserving and fighting for.

If someone can explain the contrasting upside to squandering this other than to please ignoramuses of the left, please make the case. 

"Special students" managing our Special Relationship with the U.K.

Remember how Obama was supposed to enhance our prestige in the world? It seems more like the Obama approach to foreign policy is to undercut our allies and inflate our enemies. How does that help anything?

Anyways, true to historical precedent and in a shameless bid to distract voters from an imploding economy and sky-rocketing inflation via jingoistic nationalism, Argentina's cosmetically modified left-wing Madame-in-Chief, Christina Kirchner, has decided to resurrect the faux sovereignty concerns over the Falkland Islands.This is an example of international relations at its worst.

Nile Gardiner, over at the Daily Telegraph, a leading British daily, is rightfully indignant about how the Obama administration is claiming neutrality and dismissing legitimate British concerns.  Here are some on the record comments from the State Department concerning the matter at hand:

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

“There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

Beyond being brazen and ignorant, statements like these are deliberately destructive to one of the most valued and influential trans-Atlantic relationships. Credibility is the most important factor in international relationships and diplomacy. Without it, you're kaput. The deliberate and intentional erosion of credibility, especially when nothing seems to be gained, strikes the werewolf as one of the great foreign policy position blunders a nation can make. Beyond being embarrassing (which this is), attitudes like this are scary and harmful because they undermine generations of carefully constructed understandings and protocols, along with the most highly valued, but tough to measure currency of credibility. This shameful behavior is beyond Carter-esque in ignorance, it's Chamberlin-esque (as in Neville). It is a bad sign of things to come.

The price of "Hope and Change."

Remember how all of that buzz about hope and change circulated with typhoon like force back in 2008/2009? For a man who pledged to usher in a new era in American governance, publicly bemoans the corrupting influence of money in politics, and publicly attacks the Supreme Court; President Obama seems very invested in pay-for-play politics of yore. The Daily Caller paints an interesting picture of how money has influenced Obama's appointments here. Although it's not illegal and is a previously accepted practice to appoint loyal fundraisers, it is certainly in the stratosphere of lying and hypocrisy given where the president's rhetoric has been on these issues. Even by modern political standards, this is tacky and disingenuous. The werewolf doesn't object to politicians rewarding their loyal bundlers and fundraisers for doing their job. He objects to them branding themselves dishonestly and thinking they can get away with it unnoticed in this day and age. It's very patronizing and disrespectful. This voters and taxpayers of this country owe to themselves to start insisting that politicians put their money where their mouth is!

From the previously cited Daily Caller article, here is the menu of  key positions sold to political hacks in the Obama administration: 

The Big Changers’ Club ($500,000+)
Avant, Nicole (Los Angeles, CA)
Position: Ambassador to the Bahamas
Barzun, Matthew (Louisville, KY)
Position: Ambassador to Sweden
Beyer, Don (Alexandria, VA)
Position: Nominated to Ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein
Bleich, Jeff (Piedmont, CA)
Position: Ambassador to Australia
Danzig, Richard (Washington, DC)
Position: Member, Defense Policy Board
Donahoe, Eileen Chamberlain (Washington, DC)
Position: Nominated to Ambassador to UN Human Rights Council
Eacho, William (Bethesda, MD)
Position: Ambassador to Austria
Forester, Christine (San Diego, CA)
Position: Member, Presidential Committee on the Arts and Humanities
Genachowski, Julius (Washington, DC)
Position: FCC Chairman
Gips, Don (Boulder, CO)
Position: Ambassador to South Africa
Gutman, Howard (Washington, DC)
Position: Ambassador to Belgium
Harris, Scott (Washington, DC)
Position: General Counsel, Department of Energy
Katz, Allan (Tallahassee, FL)
Position: Nominated to Ambassador to Portugal
Kennard, William (Washington, DC)
Position: Ambassador to the European Union
Oreck, Bruce (Boulder, CO)
Position: Nominated to Ambassador to Finland
Overton, Spencer (Chevy Chase, MD)
Position: Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy
Perrelli, Tom (Arlington, VA)
Position: Assistant Attorney General
Rivkin, Charlie (Los Angeles, CA)
Position: Ambassador to France and Monaco
Roos, John (Hillsborough, CA)
Position: Ambassador to Japan
Sanchez, Frank (Tampa, FL)
Position: Undersecretary of International Trade
Solomont, Alan (Boston, MA)
Position: Ambassador to Spain
Spinner, Steve (Menlo Park, CA)
Position: Loan Programs Advisor, Department of Energy
Stroum, Cynthia (Seattle, WA)
Position: Ambassador to Luxembourg

West, Tony (Oakland, CA)
Position: Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division

NAVY "Corpse Man" twice. Really?

The werewolf is constantly informed by his liberal minded colleagues that President Obama has a masterful command of the English language. Really? How does a Harvard educated lawyer screw up corpsman twice? For those of you in the dark, corpsman is pronounced "core man." It's standard English. What's next the United States Marine Corpse?

The issue here is standards. Liberals lambasted Bush's Texas twang, occasional stutters, lack of flow, and mispronunciation of foreign leaders names. All fair. It looks like our current president's has a different affliction. A slavish devotion to the teleprompter(he doesn't look at the camera once), plus a detachment from the phonetic tradition of the English language, especially as it relates to the military. Not good for a commander-in-chief guiding a country in two wars. Not to nit pick, but at what point does the media narrative start to reflect how the president conducts himself? Smooth and slick, yet oddly detached, divorced from the pronunciation of common words, aloof, and slavishly devoted to the script on his teleprompter. His flaws are different than those of his predecessor, perhaps not as significant, perhaps more-so, yet a trend has emerged, how come the media is the last to notice?

Quick reaction to the SOTU.

The werewolf is still waiting to be impressed by the President. He thought Obama would pivot more aggressively toward the center in light of three recent electoral wallopings. Obama seemed flat, condescending, self-centered, vague, combative and a little out-of-touch. But then again, would you expect a classically liberal werewolf to see anything less?

Ups: The content about the expansion of the nuclear power grid and more off-shore drilling permits, along with earmark reform was long overdue. The werewolf can raise a paw to those in good conscious.

Neutral: Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. Interesting. The camera shot of Sec. Defense Gates applauding was very telling. The werewolf is deferential to the military on most personnel decisions and thinks certain things should be left to them internally. He's neutral on this issue, but thinks it is a bold move and wonders if it will go anywhere.

Downs: What was so shocking was what went unmentioned by the President. Where the hell was GITMO and the pending terror trials in NYC? Last year, the werewolf recalls these being cornerstones of the President's agenda. He missed his deadline on GITMO and has been perceived as very weak on security with his administration's propensity to mirandize all foreign Jihadists.

The slavish attachment for archaic climate legislation as the quid-pro-quo to being pro nuke and oil exploration. Climate change science gets shadier and less reputable with each passing day. It needs to be ejected, until a relevant and meaningful rationale for it can be advocated with a straight face.

The doublespeak about lobbyists. The president promised no lobbyists, yet, he hired dozens into his administration at the get-go. He should be called out for that.

Are the only advocates of that heinous healthcare bill the president and the Democratic leadership? The president was given the golden opportunity to recognize how ugly his pet project had become, yet, he doubled down on it. Brave or retarded? His ears must really be tin at this point.

The most bizarre and strangest part was the dressing down of the supreme court over the favorable 1st amendment ruling on campaign-finance reform last week. Has a US president ever directly admonished the supreme court during a SOTU? (The werewolf doesn't know) What's really galling is that Obama is the first serious presidential candidate in recent memory to bypass the public financing of his campaign. The hypocrisy and incongruity of his attack on the pro-1st amendment ruling issued by the supreme court has to be one of the most stark moments in political hypocrisy. Even liberals have to cringe at that moment.

There were still some blame Bush diatribes. At this point, with such massive Democratic majorities and an exacerbation of our collective economic woes, blaming Bush displays a lack of internal confidence and is a rhetorical slight-of-hand aimed at the gullible and partisan audiences. If he were half the man he claimed to be, he'd step up and take ownership of his presidency. That's we expect of our leaders.

The werewolf doesn't have the energy to address to jobs double-speak at this point. It all left something to be desired.

Finally, Gov. McDonnell provided a great contrast to both Obama and last year's disappointing rebuttal by Jindal. His star will be shining brighly for some time.

There is much more the werewolf would like to dissect. However, tomorrow's op-ed's and political coverage will do a much better job than your humble exiled correspondent.

Where's that Change??? Jack Cafferty Rips Obama on Failed Openness Pledge: 'Just Another Lie Told for Political Expediency'

Courtesy of The Anchoress, this link showcases a rather astonishing rant from CNN's Jack Cafferty. It's a rare glimpse of honesty and forthrightness from the dying main stream media. The werewolf doesn't watch too much CNN, but Cafferty has always struck him as a weird hybrid of a poor man's Bill O'Reilly, crossed with the angry shabbily dressed deputy dean of nothing from junior high. Still, the candor and anger reflected in the tone, shows that liberals are beginning to understand that Obama is not a harbinger of "hope" and "change," but rather just another charlatan politician, who happens to be even more dishonest than his political kith and kin.

However, the lack of coverage about the outright lies and deception being pimped by the Democrats on the American people is shocking, because it is so apparent and easily traceable to claims they made ad nauseam. The werewolf vividly recalls the wicked witch of the West, Nancy Pelosi, bragging about a new era of transparency, inclusion, and ethics in government when the democrats retook the house and senate in 2006. Beyond the empty and vapid rhetoric of "hope" and "change" made by Obama during the 2008 campaign, the president explicitly promised that all health care discussions would be conducted in the full view of the American people via C SPAN.

Given that this health care legislation will be more expensive than the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements many times over, impact the entire population of the United States, and transform about 1/6 of the American economy, this is one the largest political scandals in the recent memory. Has "accountability" become a bad-word when progressives are in office? True outrage is permeating to the surface in certain corners, but where are all the so-called "watchdogs" and "advocates?" The silence of both most media outlets and activists on this issue is deafening. The werewolf thinks the Republic is on the cusp of some sort of Orwellian nightmare, when simple pledges get erased and blatantly ignored to cover-up legislation that rivals Johnson's "Great Society" fiasco of the 1960's.

This isn't a partisan shot. This is stating the obvious and asking that promises that were made to direct stakeholders in this society at least get consideration and air-time. So much for "hope" and "change."

Some Advice to President Obama from Elvis Presley - A Little Less Conversation A Little More Action Please

According to this Rasmussen poll featured on Powerline, President Obama's approval ratings are getting hammered. The werewolf thinks a huge portion of this decline in popularity derives from a variety of self-inflicted wounds. For a man who was supposed to heal this country, a 53% disapproval at the end of year one speaks volumes. To put it lightly, he's all talk, no action.

Obama and Our Post-Modern Race Problem. Shelby Steele spells it out.

I was reading this thoughtful opinion piece by Shelby Steele when I had the misfortune of getting fragged. Steele, one the keenest minds and observers on race relations, puts forth a compelling series of thoughts on what propelled Obama to the presidency. He contrasts him with Reagan and certain celebrities, examines the elements of symbolism involved, and he beautifully deconstructs the manipulation of perception that was essential to achieve the intergalactic fluke that was the 2008 presidential election. The closing paragraph eloquently states "And yes, white America conditioned Barack Obama to emptiness—valued him all along for his "articulate and clean" blackness, so flattering to American innocence. He is a president come to us out of our national insecurities."

Now that the blind euphoria around Obama is subsiding, the messiah's failings are becoming more apparent, and Obama's is star is clearly waning, I think America will devote some serious time and consideration to understanding just what the "hell happened" because in many ways 2008 was a fluke.

I chalked 2008 result up to the confluence of several factors:

On the election side, the Obama camp ran a highly disciplined and professional campaign. It was impressive. The McCain camp lacked discipline, never defined their territory, and allowed their internal divisions to boil the surface, disrupting the entire operation. I also think McCain lost the will to win, as he refused to exploit Obama's obvious weaknesses to his own advantage.

Bush fatigue, incompetent Republicans, and an exhaustion from the perception that we were losing in Iraq. This hurt Republican voter turnout and alienated independents.

The tabula rosa syndrome. Obama was able to be everything to everyone. Voters were able to project their aspirations onto him and see him as a vehicle for these dreams. While this proved inherently false ex post facto, and only works once, he had a mystifying sway over considerable segments of the voting population that I think drove voters to the polls on his behalf.

White guilt. Steele is a billion times more eloquent at flushing this out and in much greater detail than I could ever hope to. However, I noticed among some of my peers at business school, former colleagues, and contemporaries, that their whiteness or "pinkness" (as some of the more slavishly politically correct ones would say), was a liability to which the bore a burden. I think that they imagined casting a vote for Obama would somehow absolve them of the imagined sins that they were somehow accountable for in their own minds. It was the worst form of self-loathing, but, it clearly manifested itself heavily.

Energized democratic voter turnout. Blacks turned out in record numbers, as did younger voters, and other traditional democratic constituencies. There was an irrefutable energy shrouding Obama, and the historic nature of his campaign, that inflated this numbers. I also think Bush fatigue played a part, although not as much in energizing the liberal base, as deflating the GOP base. The irony of the high black voter turnout, is that while it increased Obama's margins, it also ensured that the gay marriage ban in California would pass, as black voters are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. The irony is priceless.

Victor Davis Hanson: Some Modest Obama Predictions.

Classicist, observer, and blogger extraordinaire, Victor Davis Hanson, issues some keen predictions in his latest post. Here are some worthy highlights:

Some Modest Obama Predictions

1) We will begin to hear ever so insidiously mention again of the “war on terror”; some quiet memo will go out to cool all the talk of ‘man-made disasters’ and ‘overseas contingency operations’.

2) Either shortly or soon next year, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano will resign. I don’t see how the nation’s point woman on domestic terrorism can claim that the system worked like “clockwork,” when the Nigerian terrorist’s own father contacted American authorities long ago to warn us about the proclivities of his own son, who came within seconds of blowing apart a transcontinental jet. The system worked only at the 11th hour thanks to a courageous Dutch tourist who took matters into his hands.

3) I think the overseas bowing, apologizing, and kowtowing will stop in 2010—it brought no tangible results. Indeed, Obama is one bow away from global caricature and humiliation. And when one examines the recent behavior of Iran, Russia, Venezuela, or Syria, one concludes that they all think they can make favorable readjustments in regional landscapes and power relationships in 2010. Obama’s advisors will try to stop his natural inclinations to apologize, and I think will be successful—given the gathering storm clouds of 2010.

4) We may hear something finally in support of the Iranian dissidents. The ‘reach out to Ahmadinejad’ line has failed. And Iran will probably get the bomb in 2010. Since we will not ratchet up sanctions or impose an embargo, the only hope to stop an theocratic bomb will be regime change—and that may prompt some Obamians to speak out on behalf of the courageous rather than worry whether the murderous will meet with us.

5) We will hear lots of talk about fiscal sobriety next year. Obama realizes that the $2 trillion annual borrowing is unsustainable and warping his foreign policy as well as his own sense of stature. He also knows that “they” who will pay increased income, payroll, health, and state taxes are simply not numerous enough to end the deficits, and may slow down or find ways to reduce income exposure—as the combine tax bite goes over 60%. As a result, we can expect some sort of federal excise tax or stealthy fees, or at least some euphemism for finding more revenue.

It doesn't take a razor sharp observer to notice the stark incongruities and blunder of the Obama administration's first year. Hanson is on to something with his first point. Political correctness is a severe disease of the mind that infects many in power these days. Sadly, one of the more acute symptoms of the vicious, paralyzing, self-imposed affliction is a complete inability to see something for what it actually is. Political correctness is an intellectual paralysis that is sourced by blending fear, resentment, and dishonesty of facts and masquerading the abominable outcome as "sensitivity." Following the massacre at Fort Hood and the failed Christmas day "undie-bomber," maintaining the politically correct delusions about the "War on Terror" as nothing more than a "man made disaster" has become increasingly untenable for the administration. A simple, and honest shift in rhetorical positioning could be a good sign that the newly installed PC apparatchiks at Homeland security are doing their job of taking threats more seriously.

Pursuant to his second point, I was and still am mildly agnostic towards Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security. Let's put aside the fact that she revels in looking androgynous and reminds me of Janet Reno on several levels. Also, other than being a former Democratic governor of a red border state, who backed Obama during the primaries, I am not sure what her homeland security qualifications are, even though she has held the portfolio for nearly a year. However, that observation is way above this exile's pay grade. It has become increasingly evident over the past few days that she has no idea what exactly is going on or how to articulate the priorities of homeland security on the Sunday talk show circuit. Given the administration is already at capacity with rhetorical and incompetent buffoonery, via Joe "The Mouth" Biden," and "tiny" Tim Geithner, I'd agree that Napolitano's day's are numbered.

I take exception to point three. Obama's constant apologizing abroad is inherently part of his international shtick. Does anyone recall that gaudy speech he delivered in Berlin back in the summer of 2008? That says it all. I find his lack of distinctly American resolve to be an appalling and feckless trait, but it was clearly part of the deal when we elected him. As much as I'd love to see a savvier and effective Obama overseas, I don't see how a switch in approach will occur because such a switch would be an admission of having been wrong. Obama strikes me as too proud and egotistical to ever imply he somehow erred. We are talking about the guy who had the gall to accept the Nobel Peace Prize after authorizing an escalation of violence in Afghanistan, and having done absolutely nothing prior to that. It takes a self-centered delusion of grandeur to pull that off with a straight face.

As for Iran, Obama's silence last summer was deafening. Especially while pro-democracy activists were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran. He has positioned himself as being fundamentally unserious about addressing the Iranian threat directly. I think he is concerned that a strong rhetorical stance, may undo some of the positive buzz associated with his Cairo speech. As much as I'd like him to, I don't see him seriously tightening the rhetorical vice on Iran in the near future. There is a lingering neurosis throughout most of the left and the Obama administration that an aggressive stance with America's known enemies and a dedicated pro-human rights posture would too closely resemble President Bush. We couldn't have that now, could we?

Finally, short of the U.S. defaulting on its debt, things can't get much worse from a governmental macro-economic policy perspective. However, fiscal and monetary sobriety will be nowhere in sight during 2010. Between the looming health care bill that bails out big insurance, and talk of a second economic stimulus package, the best we can hope for is containment of the pending damage. Maybe the dems can nationalize the legacy airlines, all government contractors, old print media, and a few construction companies next year. Yes, more middle class tax hikes can be expected. Remember, if you voted for "hope," change is all you are going to have left in your back account.