Welcome

Welcome to our conservative and right way of thinking blog. We welcome your independent mind and spirit. We look forward to an enlightening and challenging dialogue and hopefully it will always be respectful and civil. Please chat with us consistently here or our main website and elevate the global and domestic dialogue. -Armstrong Williams

LIVE Chat!

LIVE STREAMING Of THE SHOW AT 4pm EST @ www.ArmstrongWilliams.com .. PLEASE!! Dont forget to Join in on the conversation, and call into the Radio show @ 4pm EST 1866-620-6620 & 803-733-5620 with all your Question & Comment's

Friday, August 22, 2008

Moral Leadership

Last weekend Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) again displayed his inability to be decisive and clear in his viewpoints on where he stands with regard to moral issues.

The question on abortion seemed to stump Sen. Obama when being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren. With his indecisive and arrogant statement that the question of when life begins is above his paygrade, Sen. Obama displayed his ineptitude at making clear decisions and sticking by them.

As a candidate for President of the United States, Sen. Obama really needs to develop a consistent system of morals that he can publicly espouse without shame. Sen. Obama also mentioned that although there is a moral element to the issue of abortion, he himself is pro-choice. He further stated that he is not pro-abortion even though he believes that mothers should be allowed to have abortions.

This is worse than being indecisive, this is downright hypocrisy. It seems as though Sen. Obama is trying to take the middle ground on an issue where there is no middle ground. He needs to take a principled position and stop trying to leave room for flip-flopping.

It is time for this candidate for the most powerful office in the world to establish a clear system of beliefs. He needs to be courageous in his willingness to defend and hold to his beliefs without changing the subject or trying to discuss already agreed-upon issues. The president of the U.S. needs to have the courage to firmly stand up for his or her beliefs. This is what is called leadership.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Rethinking Taxes

During the past 20 years a number of economic studies have been released showing that lower income tax rates actually result in more revenue for the government. Thus, the only reason for raising taxes only on the rich is to redistribute income from the rich to the poor. This reflects the failed socialist and communist ideology of Karl Marx and others who tried to manipulate earnings, incomes and taxes to create some strange version of economic equality.

The reason we have such high corporate tax rates is easily explainable. Politicians can push and vote for corporate tax rate increases because most individual taxpayers and voters do not understand or appreciate that they are hurt by high corporate tax rates in several ways.

First, corporations must protect their profits by passing on the tax income to consumers through higher prices. Second, if corporations get a better after-tax return in a foreign country with a lower corporate tax rate, they tend to send profits from their businesses to jurisdictions with lower tax rates. This is done by transfer pricing and by sending manufacturing and service jobs abroad.

Third, if corporations are getting a lower after-tax return from their U.S. investments than their foreign investment, they will make their marginal investments in low-tax jurisdictions and not in the U.S. That will result in lower productivity and fewer jobs in the U.S.

So, inadvertently, voters are hurting themselves, their families and the economy as a whole when they allow these corporate tax rates to increase and the legislators who support them to stay in office.

Biden to Get the Nod

Newsrooms are buzzing today over the expected announcement tomorrow by Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) campaign on who his running mate will be. The back-channel pundits are theorizing the list has been winnowed down to three finalists — Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) — and now it’s up to Obama on when he wants to make the call.

Through my own tea-leaf reading, I believe Sen. Biden will get the nod. On substance, he has few equals. If he doesn’t know the answer to a question, you can bet he’ll find it, post-haste. But his strength is also Biden’s primary weakness — he doesn’t know when enough is enough. We’ve all seen the parodies of him droning on in speech after speech. It can be quite numbing. Yet the senator’s gray hair and chiseled wrinkles of past battles stand in stark contrast to Oil-of-Olay Obama.

I think that’s part of the reason you haven’t seen Biden out on the trail recently. He’s laying low. You don’t need to see much of Joe Biden because you know what he’s capable of, and that’s many things, but primarily he’s a juggernaut on foreign policy matters. The fact that he’s a known quantity affords him the opportunity to be somewhat of a surprise to the Democratic faithful next week — to the extent that ever really matters.

Contrast Biden with the gentleman from Indiana. Sure, Evan Bayh looks great on paper, but that’s about it. A former governor, he has the executive branch experience. Yet it’s not his time. He’s still a bit green. Watch his speeches from last month, along with his vanilla appearances on the Sunday circuit, and you’ll see what I’m saying.

The same is true for Tim Kaine. I think the governor has a glass jaw when it comes to raw politics. Sure, he mixed it up with Republican Jerry Kilgore to win the governorship, but Virginia politics is not near as smash-mouth as national politics, and I think Kaine would wilt under the intense pressure and light of a presidential campaign. Obama knows that.

So you heard it here first, folks! Sen. Biden is the best shot for Obama to smooth out his rough edges on foreign policy and international affairs. The only unanswered question that remains is how will Hillary take the news and what price will she seek to exact from Obama’s camp during the convention as payment??

Monday, August 18, 2008

Obama's Betrayal of Thomas

When the question was put to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) by presidential candidate forum moderator Rev. Rick Warren, asking him which of the Supreme Court justices he would not have appointed, Sen. Obama, almost without hesitation, blurted out Clarence Thomas's name. Moreover, it was not the fact that Obama disagreed with his views that stood out, but his reasons for doing so. Obama stated that he felt Thomas lacked the qualifications for the job. Many conservatives who happen to be black know firsthand the pain and frustration of having their views dismissed without consideration because of the unstated premise that their skin color makes them incompetent.

This sad underbelly to liberalism, namely liberal racism, had gone largely unchallenged by the black political elite until they themselves felt the sting recently as the liberal icons the Clintons played on racial stereotypes to try and destroy Obama in the Democratic primaries.

This is why Sen. Obama's remarks are so unfortunate and counterproductive. On the one hand, by casting off Justice Thomas, who is widely revered in conservative circles for his principled and courageous stand in the face of popular opposition, Obama risks alienating what may be one of his most surprising allies — black conservatives. Many of these individuals have resisted going after Obama because they felt he represented a new paradigm in politics; he resisted victimization and racial polarization as a campaign strategy, and instead focused on competence and unity behind a message of change for all Americans. Many black conservatives will feel ultimately betrayed by Obama's remarks, and see them as pandering to a white liberal elitism and racism.

On the other hand, Obama has revealed a tendency in his character to bully those he views as weak or isolated. When he spoke of Justices Scalia and Roberts, he was careful to acknowledge their intellectual superiority, and distinguished himself from them merely on the basis of their philosophy. Obama showed, in doing this, a deference to those he thinks possess the power in this country (namely whites), and a total disrespect for the path that was paved by the likes of Thomas and other black conservatives in championing character, independence of thought, and merit over race as a prerequisite for leadership. This character flaw is going to make it virtually impossible for me to continue to hold out hope for Obama's presidential aspirations.

When it really boils down to it, what is the real difference between Sen. Obama and Justice Thomas? They share similar academic pedigrees. They have both championed race-neutral strategies for social and economic development. And, they are both essentially conservative on social issues: fatherhood, family values and same-sex marriage. So what is the difference? Perhaps it comes down to the fact that a puppet Master is pulling Obama's strings.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson Era is Over

Several Democratic activists today are lamenting the removal of the Rev. Jesse Jackson from a speaking role at the party’s convention later this month. Not only are they lamenting it, they’re downright mad about it, as reported by Bob Cusack in The Hill. I’m not sure why, though. Should anyone be surprised by this move?

Just last month, Jackson managed to shoot himself in the foot while it was in his mouth when he verbally castrated the putative nominee. He only has himself to blame. And what’s with the party these days? Do they think they can help their candidate get elected by constantly disparaging him? And then these mavericks want all the pomp and glory that comes with the big party during the convention?!

But loyalty notwithstanding, Jackson has been sowing these seeds of discord long before the decision was made to 86 him from the program. This sense of entitlement the reverend has apparently come to expect from the campaign is getting old. And if you don’t make an effort to finally, and completely, end it, then he and his radical positions will continue to haunt the party. Isn’t that what Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) wants — a move away from the divisive nature of racial politics that the Rev. Jackson has come to embody? That’s what’s so refreshing about Obama’s campaign — new thinking about a party that had grown stale in how it appealed to minorities.

Further, the Obama campaign deserves credit for placing Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D) on the program — an ardent supporter of the unborn. That sort of inclusiveness is just the sort of new direction Obama is espousing. Let’s hope his administration does more than just pay lip service to the issue if he’s elected.

This is not 1984 anymore. The Rev. Jackson honorably served his party through the talks he gave in conventions past. But lately, his kind of talk has served to undermine the new vision that Obama claims to share. And that can only mean one thing for Jackson — the end of an era.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Georgia on Their Minds

The ongoing Russian military pounding of the former Soviet bloc nation of Georgia offers an interesting insight into the minds of the two presidential candidates. This is serious business, and incidents like these are excellent trial runs of what our next president would do when that phone rings at 3 in the morning.

By most metrics, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has handled this issue better. From his bold statements in quickly (and specifically) denouncing the Russian onslaught to his repeated criticisms of where the current Medvedev/Putin regime is headed as a superpower, the ex-Navy aviator and Senate Armed Services Committee member proved his mettle, in my estimation. He even went so far as to say he would support Georgia’s ascendancy to NATO. Like it or not, that sort of statement shows McCain is peering around the corner — something America must do if it wants to resume its rightful place in the world.

Put simply, he did not equivocate. And while some analysts want to call that “cowboy talk,” it’s the only thing the Russians seem to respond to. McCain even scored high marks on his choice of venue and delivery — normally two weaknesses for the campaign as it has struggled in the past to strike the right tone for the message of the day.

Contrast that presentation with Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.). I’m sorry, but discussing foreign policy in a Hawaiian shirt while on vacation with sub-par sound systems and palm trees waving in the background exudes something less than presidential. Beyond the optics, Sen. Obama’s statements reveal the same mealy talk that has haunted dovish Democrats for four decades. Some could come to understand his lukewarm rebuke of the Russians. After all, harsh talk coming on the heels of a détente tour of Europe would seem to negate Obama’s “one world” theme. Still, it doesn’t mean his position is right. And sooner or later, he’ll need to sharpen his rhetoric (or his judgment) on how to deal diplomatically with a nation that understands the stick more than the carrot.

It’s Time for a Merger: NAACP and Mainstream America Protecting the Civil Rights of All Americans

When Berwyn Heights, Md. Mayor Cheye Calvo found himself sitting on the floor of his home, handcuffed to his distraught mother-in-law during a brazen no-knock raid by Prince George’s County sheriff's deputies last week, he must have thought he was channeling the ghost of a runaway slave.

And he must have experienced a state beyond shock as the police proceeded to shoot his beloved Labrador retrievers to death, when, according to him, they never posed a threat to anyone. The dogs were shot, in his words, merely “for sport.” After all, the young, married mayor had no idea what the police were looking for, and why their business in his home required such a hasty, overbearing and potentially fatal confrontation.

As it turns out, the police had the wrong guy, and hadn't bothered to fully check their facts before raiding his home; an understandable mistake in the course of busy police work. What's unacceptable, however, is that the police executed a warrantless no-knock raid that resulted in the deaths of the mayors’ dogs. And, to add insult to injury, the police cleared Calvo of any wrongdoing, but flatly refused to apologize to him and his family for the emotional distress they caused. No-knock warrants, as they are called, are a procedure that became widely controversial after the death of a 94-year-old African-American grandmother in Atlanta, who, fearing that her home was being robbed, shot once at the plainclothes policemen charging through her door, and died tragically in a hail of return gunfire.

Interestingly, the local chapter of the NAACP rushed to the mayor’s aid, decrying the raid as an unconstitutional violation of his civil rights. Not surprising, you might say. After all, the NAACP has a long and storied history of defending civil rights — for black people. In this case, the victim was white.

The fact that the victim was a white, middle-class male, living in a white, middle-class neighborhood illustrates the fact that civil rights are not just a racial issue — but a matter of liberty and freedom for all Americans. For an organization that has declined in significance in recent decades, with no major policy or grassroots agenda worthy of note, this new role, protector of the rights of all Americans, could give it new relevance.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Bonnie & Clyde: The Clintons Are America’s Political Outlaw Couple

If it was not already clear, there is now no mistaking the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton have become America’s most notorious political outlaw couple. Despite what may have happened in the past to divide them, whether it was Bill’s infidelity or Hillary’s cold-blooded power grabs, they are now as thick as thieves as they go about their illicit attempt to undermine Obama’s run for the White House.

It is hard to believe that a Democratic ex-president would hesitate to give the most glowing endorsement possible of the party’s presumptive nominee, but that is just what Bill Clinton did last weekend in an ABC News television interview. Not only did Clinton hedge on whether Obama was qualified to be president, he openly lamented his wife’s primary loss. This comes as no surprise to Republicans, who witnessed firsthand the carnage they left behind; from the highly questionable suicide of Vince Foster to the unexplained plane crash of late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, they have left a trail literally littered with bodies.

The Clintons have proven that they will stop at nothing to gain more power. Neither party loyalty, nor the nomination rules and procedures, nor voter sentiment will stand in their way. They are willing to take what they want, consequences be damned. Obama has hoped in the past to appease them, but that will no longer work. The closer we get to the election, the more desperate the Clintons will become. If Obama does not come out with the guns blazing leading up to the convention, he’ll end up being just another one of their hapless victims.

More Illegal Immigration Garbage

Ten states in our great country allow illegal aliens not only to attend college in their state, but to do so at in-state tuition rates. This means that aliens can break all sorts of federal laws, come into our country illegally, and then go to these states and pay cheaper tuition than citizen students from out of state. Are you kidding me?

This college tuition issue came to light recently when about three dozen students in California filed a lawsuit against the University of California, charging that it had violated federal law by allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at its campuses while maintaining higher rates for out-of-state students.

How can we be throwing money at illegal immigrants when most Americans are struggling to get by? California citizens are mortgaged to the hilt, foreclosing left and right, and hoping they can afford their next meal and pay their next bill. Why would we dish out money to aliens instead of giving it to citizen teenagers who need help paying for college, teachers who deserve better salaries or school districts that need more materials, better equipment and newer schools?

We need to spend more money on education — that is a given — and California definitely should make its students and schools a priority, but this policy is so far off base it’s a joke.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

A Few Decent Members

I was recently in Alaska, where I witnessed firsthand the love most Alaskans have for their embattled elder statesman, Sen. Ted Stevens (R).

Since 1968, Stevens has committed just about all his time and energy to helping the great state get everything it deserves, and then some. And the citizens up there recognize that and are willing to give the recently indicted Republican the benefit of the doubt on this one. But Stevens’s behavior throughout the years is symptomatic of a larger problem that I fear is permeating American politics today, and certainly the Republican Party.

It appears the United States Congress and its members have lost all semblance of shame. They appear as though they are impregnable at times, absent humility; and when the wheels of justice turn against them, they sprinkle around the magical pixie dust of crying “political witch hunt!” and hope they get off.

In a politically puzzling time like this, undecided and independent voters are looking at both sides to find an individual for whom to cast their ballots. If members of Congress — Republican or Democrat — want to get or stay elected, they need to pay more attention to not only what they do, but the appearance of their actions and what sort of message that sends to voters who put their trust in our system of government. Remember, the people have the power, and with each passing scandal, they are more likely to use that power at the election booth.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

The Half-Black/Half-White Insanity

I am sick and tired of the talk of Barack Obama possibly becoming the first black president of the United States. If you check your history, there have been other mixed-race presidents of this country. They may have been a little lighter and brighter than Sen. Obama, but they were still mixed. We are all from the same gene pool, and if science is to be believed we are all descended from the same woman in East Africa. This euphoria over Obama and his race merely confirms the indelible stain that racism has imprinted upon the American psyche.

The one-drop rule was a legal framework stemming from the Jim Crow era that specified that a person was black if he or she contained merely one drop of African blood. In practical terms, this rule was all but impossible to enforce, and many individuals of mixed heritage passed for white over the years; their progeny have fully integrated within the white race. Conversely, people whose racial heritage may be mixed but who have dark skin are all considered to be black, no matter what their personal identification or upbringing might have been. Thus, someone like Barack Obama, whose mother is white, and who was raised within a white family, with no contact with the black side of his family as a child, is considered by most people to be black. The insanity of color prejudice in this country forces people of mixed race to choose sides. They almost have to negate one part of themselves to acknowledge the other.

The more I ponder the absurdity of racism in this country, the more perplexed I have become. But what is clear to me is that come November, I will not be voting for or against anyone because of the color of their skin. As attractive as it might seem to try and change the legacy of racism by choosing the first viable black presidential candidate who comes along, there is too much at stake in this country to vote on such a frivolous basis. The person who gets my vote will be the candidate who presents the best vision for the direction of our country and who exhibits the better personal character.

Rational Exuberance

Driven by high fuel costs, many of us are moving from the suburbs back to urban centers, sparking a period of urban renewal that billions of dollars in public funding and decades of urban planning failed to accomplish. In essence, many of us are driving less and living more. Telecommuting and shorter workweeks are also evolving trends. Recently, some local municipal governments have started giving employees the option of working a four-day week to help them reduce fuel costs. Suffolk County, N.Y., approved a measure recently to allow workers to adopt a flextime four-day workweek or take furloughs to cut down on commuting.

Finding ways to do more with less not only makes economic sense, it could help ease our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce the harmful environmental consequences of hydrocarbon pollution. Because we feel we need their oil, we lack the real leverage to encourage countries like Saudi Arabia from spreading radical Islam, a direct sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. With oil prices sky high, at least some of the windfall profits these nations are making go directly to funding terrorists. Moreover, most of us, whether or not we call ourselves conservationists, agree that global warming is a real thing. Any measures that we can take to reduce our consumption and waste will make our planet a more livable place, and may prevent catastrophic changes in the environment.

During times of struggle, whether individually or collectively, we would do well to look within and prepare ourselves for the road ahead. We should not get so consumed by our hardships that we fail to see the good that can come of them, or rather what we can become by learning from them. This is not the time to curb our enthusiasm, but rather to unfetter it. This is a call for rational exuberance — the optimism that stems from knowing that tough times make us stronger.

Advice to McCain: Try a Little Tenderness

Among John McCain's heralded achievements in this campaign is his endorsement of the troop surge in Iraq, which, from all indications, has been successful in helping to quell both al Qaeda and domestic sectarian violence in Iraq. However, with a recent Washington Post poll showing ambivalence about Republicans' prescriptions for the economy among working-class and poor Americans, he needs a surge of empathy to demonstrate he is concerned with the plight of everyday Americans.

The Post's poll also revealed, surprisingly, that Obama enjoys a 10-point advantage among poor working-class whites, a fact that underscores the pressing economic issues faced by many Americans. While many have expressed skepticism about Obama's elitism and distance from the pulse of the heartland, as well as his stance on energy exploration, they nonetheless feel that he is the more empathetic candidate when it comes to the everyday economic problems we all face.

Thus far, McCain has offered expanding domestic production of oil as a salve to soothe the wounds created by escalating energy prices. But the supply-side improvements may seem to some to offer only indirect solutions to the problem. People want something that they feel is directed at them, and not a trickle-down solution that might end up lining Big Oil's already overflowing coffers.

In other words, McCain has got to start demonstrating that he cares about people and not just profits. The question comes down to one of perspective. What's more important: the amount of money people have to spend on their wants and needs, or setting the preconditions for spending by investing in profit-making enterprises? Certainly, as entrepreneurs and investors, one sees the immense potential that investing in business can have in the future. But the fact of the matter is that most of America has pressing, immediate needs and may not be able to see that far down the road.

While McCain may have a road map for ultimate success in improving domestic economic conditions, he should be aware that the map is not the territory. The situation on the ground is pressing — some might even say depressing. So despite the fact that there might be rough seas on the horizon, McCain would do well to offer sympathetic words and symbols to show that he is in the same boat, that he feels the pain as well. A people weary with war and economic displacement need at least a bit of sentiment from their leaders. It is time to try a little tenderness.

Protesting Your Way to the White House

The standard advice from career counselors is that complaining about one’s salary is the wrong way for an employee to go about getting a promotion or a raise. While in the short run, management might seem to give in, hoping to quiet a squeaky wheel, in the long run the strategy usually backfires. The bosses merely wait for some opportune moment down the line to can the rabble-rouser. Candidates for president of the United States should heed this advice as well.

Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) supporters in the media have reacted pretty loudly to widespread criticism that he is acting arrogantly. Some have complained that the criticism stems from a racially motivated desire to put him in his place.

This is preposterous. Despite — some say because of — his race, Obama has a serious chance of winning the White House this fall. The last thing anyone with any degree of intelligence cares about at this point is race. The central question is: Which candidate can convince Americans that he will govern more responsibly?

Candidate Obama has already passed the personality test. Now he needs to pass the sobriety test. Furthermore, his supporters would do well to remind Sen. Obama that winning the presidency is a privilege, not a right, and that protesting the vetting process will not get him there.

If Mr. Obama is sincere about leading this country to a better future, and not just trying to put another notch in his belt, he needs to seriously tone down the triumphant atmosphere a bit and listen to the people whose votes are necessary for him to succeed.

The New Racists?

Theorists who conjecture about racial relations in America posit that racism, an institutional practice, differs from prejudice, a personal flaw, in that racism requires power. It has therefore been argued that while both whites and blacks exhibit prejudice, only white people can be racists.

This conclusion is predicated upon the assumption that an elite class of white people have always possessed more institutional power than has any black person. In the past, this has been largely true — privileged whites controlled the electoral system before the Voting Rights Act was passed; they controlled hiring and promotions in the workplace before anti-discrimination laws were passed; and they controlled law enforcement in many places, using their authority to unfairly target and punish blacks.

But one wonders whether blacks, as they have gained more access to institutional power in recent times (they can now be found in greater ranks in government, business and the media), can also be practitioners of racism. Certainly, many whites have felt discrimination in the form of being passed over in favor of less-qualified minority candidates who were promoted to fill government-mandated quotas. And whites often feel victimized by the fact that they cannot voice perspectives that are critical of certain issues without being called "racist."

In fact, unfairly calling someone a racist may itself be viewed as a form of racism — because it uses prejudice (judging the person without knowing his or her intentions) and implies a threat of power, in this case the threat of social shaming, economic boycott or legal retaliation. Moreover, one wonders whether black elites exhibit the same degree of responsibility for avoiding racism as society requires of white elites. Some would say there’s a double standard at work here: that black elites can get away with being openly prejudiced, while whites cannot.

Obama's Tightrope

While Robert Novak's column last week questioning Sen. Barack Obama's failure to close the deal among white Americans, despite his overwhelming personal and organizational advantages, may have struck some as a bluntly crafted attack, it nonetheless reflects a fundamental problem with his campaign at this point.

For some reason, even whites who might be open to voting for Democrats in this election are apparently reluctant to vote for a black candidate. That's why Obama's (D-Ill.) strategy to try and mobilize the black vote in swing states is especially problematic.

Traditionally, Democrats have used fear of racism to whip a largely apathetic black electorate into a frenzy. This cynical equation will not, however, work for Obama. Not only has he campaigned on a message of change and hope, a message that would lose potency were he to resort to the old scare tactics, but he would risk a backlash among the voters he needs to alienate the least. Not only would Obama lose any chance of winning the white working-class vote — he might actually end up mobilizing them to come out in large numbers against him.

Given the relative difference in numbers between the white working class and black voters in general, this would be a deathly blow to the Obama campaign. So it remains to be seen how Obama will be able to get his core constituency to come out in large numbers, while remaining open and inclusive of all Americans. One thing’s for sure; if he’s successful, it will have been the tightrope walk of the century.

The Obama Debriefing

He drew crowds of hundreds of thousands. He made the newspaper’s top fold almost daily. World leaders flocked to his side for photo shoots. If you read the front page last week, you would think both America and the world elected Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as their 43rd president. But if you stop and read the speeches and statements he made, you’d recognize that his foreign policy positions are quite inconsistent, something that should concern American voters. After all, it’s not the Germans he’s trying to court, but red-blooded Yanks. My debriefing would read something like this:

July 19
The Democratic nominee began his tour in Afghanistan, visiting troops and speaking with leaders. Great photo-op. But why would any potential commander in chief state his position on Afghanistan (or any country, for that matter) and then travel there to somehow affirm his preconceived beliefs? I know he’s good, but is he now invoking the gift of prophecy? Let’s not forget this is the same sitting legislator who presides over a committee in the Congress charged with the affairs of Afghanistan, yet he held not one hearing on the matter, deferring instead to the “full committee.” Not exactly what I’d call a profile in leadership. The moral of that trip? Nice place to visit, but only if your opponent dares you to …

July 21
The next stop on his trip landed him in Iraq, where he met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (more feel-good footage), who concurred with the senator that America should withdraw her troops by 2010. Although the catalyst for withdrawal was due largely to President Bush’s troop surge, Sen. Obama repeatedly refused to acquiesce that minor detail. How does he possibly square that circle? Even the nation’s leading newspapers (Obamacons, all) acknowledge that it is the surge that lets the senator’s 16-month redeployment look even remotely plausible.

July 23
From Iraq, the now experienced world traveler moved into Israel. In order to appease Israeli leadership, he reverted from his previous statements that he would meet with antagonistic leaders in his first year as president. In my estimation, Sen. Obama’s back-and-forth on Jerusalem and this “final status” issue was his single largest misstep of this trip. He doesn’t think there’s a problem with his waffling, but there is, and it will continue to haunt him with the Jewish vote here in the States.

For Obama’s campaign, a lot of things went right on this trip optically. But for American diplomacy, there were some significant stumbles and gaffes. When voters are debriefed, they deserve the whole story — balanced and unvarnished.

Time to Get Serious

The Germans are already calling him “President Obama,” while the king of Jordan is driving him around in his Mercedes. Even the senator’s own staff is swallowing the Kool-Aid as fast as they can stir it by invoking “White House protocol” on what are clearly campaign stops.

I realize it’s difficult not to savor the limelight on the other side of the Atlantic, particularly when the current Oval Office occupant is so despised by the Middle East and Europe. At some point, however, Obama needs to honor the office he seeks to hold by respecting the man who currently serves as America’s chief diplomat, and the policies this administration has established. David Gergen — adviser to four presidents, mind you — said it best when he stated, “I cannot remember a campaign in which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that’s under way with another party outside the country.” That’s dangerous, on so many levels.

Yet Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) continues to enjoy this sense of empowerment; and he feeds off the media more than any candidate I’ve seen in the past decade. The American people see this for what it is. A Rasmussen poll out today found that 49 percent of Americans think the media is totally biased toward Sen. Obama. Just 14 percent feel that way toward Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the coverage he’s garnering.

We’ve moved beyond the measured, balanced stories of the Fourth Estate that examine both candidates equally, to a no-holds-barred cage match where the press is chasing stories that are not fit to print, but rather fit to sell. It’s time to get serious in this campaign season and re-calibrate all of our attentions — the attention of the media, the public and the candidates themselves.