But you’d have to be stupid, fanatical, and dishonest to argue–as Trig Truther Sullivan does–that Barack Obama’s failures are part of an ingenious “long game” that is destined to succeed.

If this is the best Obama’s supporters can do, Obama’s only hope for re-election is the weak Republican field.

Sullivan, who claims to care about national debt, begins by arguing, contrary to reality, that Obama’s massive $787 billion stimulus (actually, $862 billion) turned the economy around. He offers no proof other than the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy familiar from basic economics. Sullivan also ignores the composition of the stimulus, which shoveled cash to cronies and bloated big states with their massive public sector obligations.

In addition, Sullivan claims that Obama’s auto bailout succeeded–when in fact it pushed aside property rights and subsidized failed “green” cars, rather than allowing car makers to rebuild through normal bankruptcy. He also commends Obama for continuing George W. Bush’s bank bailouts–but does not mention the Dodd-Frank financial “reforms” that enshrine “too big to fail,” hurt small businesses and fail to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Next, Sullivan tries to defend Obama on taxes, pointing out that the president passed tax cuts as part of the stimulus. He ignores the numerous new taxes and tax increases that Obama signed into law–from higher cigarette taxes to the many ObamaCare taxes–as well as the glaring fact that Obama has been campaigning for the past several years on the promise to raise taxes on the rich, and would have done so if not for Congress.

Sullivan’s defense of ObamaCare is that it is more “moderate” than it might have been. That is hardly a measure of success–and after devious accounting tricks, thousands of waivers, and the abandonment of ObamaCare’s Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program, the law is clearly on a path to failure. Fundamentally, it is unconstitutional–a reality Sullivan does not care to note in his encomium to Obama.

On foreign policy, Sullivan hails Obama’s success in the death of Osama bin Laden–giving a fantastical account of the president’s courage, and perpetuating the false meme that Bush had “ignored” Al Qaeda. In fact, it was the war in Iraq–and the interrogation methods that Sullivan decries–that produced the intelligence that led to bin Laden.

Aside from the war on Al Qaeda, Obama squandered every diplomatic and military success bequeathed to him by Bush. He destroyed missile defense in Europe, and wasted hard-won gains in Iraq by withdrawing troops against the advice of the military. While appeasing Iran and gutting the future of our defense, Obama alienated and undermined U.S allies. Sullivan, who detests Israel, even applauds Obama’s pointless confrontation with Benjamin Netanyahu–hardly a way to sell a second Obama term.

Having dealt with conservatives (in his own mind at least), Sullivan lists reasons that the left should be pleased with the president they elected. He’s correct that liberals should back Obama; they will never again see a U.S. president with such radical policies and pedigree. But he overlooks the degree to which Obama has discredited left-wing theory by exposing its flaws in practice–the real reason the left is distancing itself from him.

What is most telling in Sullivan’s admonition to liberals is his use of Obama’s inaugural metaphor of the “clenched fist.” The president, he says, “begins by extending a hand to his opponents” and outwits them when they respond “by raising a fist.” Yet Obama was referring to foreign policy, not U.S. politics. Once in office, of course, Obama embraced America’s enemies and bullied domestic opponents–as even the left knows all too well.

Sullivan quotes George Orwell: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” What is in front of Sullivan’s nose is Obama’s incompetence. He has coasted on the military success of his Republican predecessor, and is taking credit for moderate economic progress enabled by a Republican Congress that has held taxes, regulation, and spending in check. If he wins in 2012, Obama will again have Republicans to thank.

Yesterday, I wondered how Nancy Pelosi and her husband were able to participate in Visa’s IPO in March 2008. It is very difficult for an individual investor to participate in IPOs, especially those which are heavily ‘oversubscribed’ as Visa’s was. It was the hottest IPO of the year, drawing what one analyst described as “extreme demand.” So, this tidbit from Newsweek’s story on Visa’s campaign to curry favor with Pelosi caught my attention:

Separately, Pelosi’s husband, Paul, a major investor in California, got a lucrative phone call from his personal broker—a pre-screen invite in March 2008 to take part in Visa’s $17.9 billion public stock offering, at the time one of the hottest stock offerings in an otherwise soft market. The initial-public-offering price was $44 per share and was limited to institutional investors and a group of specially selected individuals. Almost $18 billion was made available in public stock to preselected investors. Paul Pelosi made the cut.

Wait, what? He was called and ‘invited’ to purchase shares in the IPO? Seriously? Let’s isolate one particular sentence from this graph:

The initial-public-offering price was $44 per share and was limited to institutional investors and a group of specially selected individuals.

Specially selected individuals? Selected by whom? And, for what reasons, specifically?

If you are John Bresnahan at Politico, this will all seem like a fortuitous coincidence. The Pelosis obviously have lots of money to invest and their broker may have been one of the few people empowered to select who was lucky enough to buy into the hottest IPO of the year. Although, individual investors with access to IPOs tend to be far more active and wealthy investors than the Pelosis, a ‘reporter’ at Politico could view it all as perfectly normal. But, let’s look at the larger context here.

As Newsweek notes, Visa was very worried about Democrat proposals to regulate interchange, or “swipe” fees. Late in 2007, they organized a campaign to “court” then-Speaker Pelosi to plead their case and block new legislation regulating their business. One of their lobbying firms even hired a former top Pelosi staffer, Dean Aguillen, and the company, its executives and lobbyists began donating to her campaign.

Dean Aguillen was prohibited from lobbying his former boss for one year, but, according to Newsweek he provided key strategic advice to Visa:

By law he was unable to lobby his former boss for a year, but he immediately registered to lobby Congress on the credit-card issue, offering guidance to other lobbyists on Visa’s team during strategy sessions, according to a lobbyist present in strategy deliberations.

In other words, the former Pelosi staffer was helping Visa figure out a way to win her support on their top legislative priority.

In Spring 2008, Rep. John Conyers introduces the very legislation that Visa feared most and just a handful of days later, Paul Pelosi is invited to buy shares in Visa’s IPO. Again, really? Who made that decision? Was it Dean Aguillen, perhaps?

If that decision was in any way related to Nancy Pelosi’s position as Speaker, she may run afoul of House ethics rules. As even Politico notes:

Under House rules, lawmakers are prohibited from using their official position “for personal gain.” This ban includes instances when a lawmaker uses “his political influence, the influence of his position … to make pecuniary gains” or take any official action that affects their own personal finances, the House Ethics Manual states.

Being part of Visa’s IPO, where the stock price rose 50% in two days, would generate a heck of a lot of “personal gain.” Was the invitation in any way tied to her position as Speaker? As Politico noted this morning, Nancy Pelosi really does have a ‘golden touch.’

OBAMA:  Cheeky b**tard.  All right, accept.  Eric, have Federal marshals available to round up and escort legislators to the Chamber.  Encourage them to be rough with Republicans.

JAY CARNEY: Our dirty tricks team affixed a wireless speaker under Joe Wilson’s seat, sir. We’ll trigger it to replay “You lie!” four minutes into your remarks.

BRIAN WILLIAMS:  Afterward, our technicians will enhance the audio, pinpoint the source, and nail him.  Wilson will deny, but voiceprint analysis confirms it’s his voice.

OBAMA:  And another firestorm.  Man never learns.

DAVID PLOUFFE:  Lotta voters throwing the Kool-Aid back in our faces, sir.  I wonder if a speech touting investment in urine-powered cars and prefabricated bamboo homes will help your numbers.

OBAMA:  Anyone with a better idea?

CARNEY:  Do a 180, sir: have a “Come-to-Jesus Moment” before the whole country, announcing you’ve finally realized you’re a socialist ideologue.

OBAMA:  Ouch!  Why would anyone believe I really had this . . . epiphany?

DALEY:  Once you’ve bared your soul, entreat Paul Ryan to take over immediately as OMB Director.

OBAMA: Ohhkk.

VALERIE JARRETT:  And proclaim support for the Fair Tax, effectively eviscerating the IRS.  Millions of NObamas would bless you, and maybe Neal Boortz would finally shut up.

OBAMA:  Hmm.  So, REALLY slash spending, except for Defense; dissolve the NLRB; open up drilling in Anwar and the Gulf; and join Republicans in the fight to overturn Obamacare?

PLOUFFE: That’s the idea, sir.  You’d lose the base, of course, but independents and disaffected moderate Democrats would come flocking back when your actions sparked an economic boom.

JOE BIDEN:  Might work, Boss.  Govern like Palin until the election.  With unemployment by then down to 5%, the Dow at 15,000, and gas at 99 cents a gallon, you’d be a shoo-in.  On the day after you’re reelected, return to the tried and true policies that got us to where we are right now.

OBAMA:  Ah.  Allowing me to spend my final four years adhering to the principles which guided me through the first three.  One step forward, two steps back. . . or is it one step backward, two steps forward?

JARRETT:  Sounds tempting, sir, but you will be primaried if you turn hard right.

DALEY: Not necessarily a bad thing, Val. An internal contest might revitalize us all.

BIDEN: So, who’d the primary opponent be?  Kucinich the Munchkin [snort]?  Nader the Undead?  Hillary the Shrillary?

PLOUFFE:  Not Hillary.  She’d beat him.  I think . . . you, Mr. Vice-President.

BIDEN:  Me?

PLOUFFE:  Why not?  Next to you, the President always looks good.  When he wins the nomination, he’ll graciously offer to keep you on as VP.

OBAMA: Wait.  Wait.  Wait.  Enough! I’d go crazy if I spent the next year trying to stay right of Perry, pretending to care what’s happening in flyover country.  No.  The economy’s down but not out yet.  My job’s not done.  We remain on course.

PLOUFFE:  We can’t depend on natural disasters to distract voters all the way to the election, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Well, then, let’s create our own diversions.  George?

SOROS:  I pay couple pointy-head Kos Kids to tattoo svastika und American eagle on shaved skulls, guest on Hardball, und threaten uprising unless President impeached.

WILLIAMS:  Clever.  The other anchors and I could use the appearance as a pretext to go after anyone to the right of Dick Lugar.

HOLDER:  Along the same lines, sir: there’s a Boy Scout jamboree at an isolated compound in West Texas next spring.  I’ll stage a variant of the Waco siege to incite Perry, Romney and the others to make inflammatory statements about both of us.  Time and Newsweek will be all over them like brown on rice.

DALEY:  Don’t you mean “like white on rice”?

HOLDER:  My idioms are politically correct, Bill, even if they don’t make sense.  Anyway, their wingnuts’ heads will explode.

WILLIAMS:  MSNBC will run 24/7 to frame the hotheads as a threat to civil order and lump them in with the GOP to delegitimize the party.

PINCH SULZBERGER:  The Times can prep the ground.  Before the raid, we’ll run a story on an Evangelical sect using the jamboree as cover to plot an armed revolution.  Eric Lichtblau’s available since the smoke’s cleared following his discredited hit piece on Chairman Issa of Oversight; it’ll be a nice break for him after a few months on the obituary desk.

JARRETT:  We could use one more major distraction sometime next summer.

PLOUFFE:  How about a purge, sir, of, uh, people who have given you bad advice?

OBAMA:  You mean . . . you and Valerie and Bill and Eric and  . . . .

PLOUFFE:  Not the inner circle, sir.  Scapegoats.

OBAMA:  Hmm.  Geithner’s expendable.  There’s nothing more he can do to undermine faith in our financial system.  And Napolitano—she’s getting too big for her britches.

HOLDER:  [wagging finger] Careful, sir; such language would be considered sexist coming from anyone not a member of an oppressed minority.

CARNEY:  I’m late for my briefing, Mr. President.  What should I say to reporters regarding heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula?

OBAMA:  Leon, what are your sources telling you about Kim Jong II and the Koreas?

PANETTA:  We know he has an STD, sir, but I’m not sure it’s that one.

OBAMA:  Uh, do you have any HUMINT for me?

PANETTA:  Um, no.  May I offer you a stick of spearmint, instead?  Geithner took over Wrigley’s last week, so it’s gummint approved . . . . I was making a joke, sir.

OBAMA:  Leon, tomorrow I want you to hire an undocumented Guatemalan housekeeper, then resign as soon as you realize what you’ve done.

[As the Republican nominee begins his opening statement, President Obama reflects.*]

I

Ooooh . . . he speaks, the right’s Orion!

Expel your foul dis-charges—phew!

Could glares steal breath, Paulie Ryan,

‘Bout now you’d be turning blue!

Huh?  Big spending cuts are needed?

Ah, Fed tax rates mustn’t rise.

And these . . . “facts” I’ve not conceded?

Why?  They’re falsehoods, damn your eyes!

II

In the past we’ve had discussions–

“Paul–thanks for coming!”—I must bear

Rants on Market repercussions,

Treas’ry futures, budget snares.

Our job outlook’s pathetic; rarely

Has it been this bad, I think.

Want a deal to face this squarely?

Want emetics in your drink?

III

Aww!  So sad the Roadmap folded–

All those hours and effort spent!

I confess, we push-and-polled it

‘Til we hastened its descent.

Of course, Grandma was affronted

When you shoved her off that peak.

The best you had I blunted.

(Is his time up yet? The geek!)

IV

Jeez, I’m starved!  My chef Cristeta

Waits inside our hotel suite

With live lobsters (Don’t tell PETA!)

And the finest cuts of meat:

Marbled Kobe, umm, oven-roasted grouse;

Rocky Oysters, Poulet, Veal Fondue.

If this rube attains the White House,

They’ll be serving Shepherd’s Stew.

V

While I feign concern, compassion,

Truth and honor’s what he touts.

Well, get real, they’re out-of-fashion

In a country filled with louts.

I’m the Boss man, Chief Tirader,

The epitome of cool.

Ryan’s a dreary green eyeshader;

He says, “govern.”  I say, “rule.”

VI

Ho, Bernanke!  Print more money!

Yes, I’ll spend us out of debt!

Better not try to stop me, sonny;

You’d have reason to regret.

I hear you prize your honor; your rep, too.

Everyone says that you don’t faze.

Well, wait’ll you see what Time and Newsweek

Dump on you in coming days.

VII

Hmm, maybe I’ll pose a gun rights question

That boxes him in real tight.

Make him seem like Charlton Heston

To the middle and left of right.

Photoshop him shooting a moose

With a silly grin on his face;

Palin stands there with her thirty ought six–

Won’t please anyone ‘cept the base.

VIII

Wait!  I’ll ask a friend at WashPo

To follow him to the loo;

Take a stall and tap his right foot,

Then report he saw Ryan’s shoe.

Or . . . a maid who needs her green card–

Who can tell what she might say

When a Timesman trolls for canards

On the Congressman’s recent stay?

IX

Just don’t panic!  Who’s the master?

I won’t go down; I run the show.

If it seems I face disaster,

I can fabricate a foe

And a crisis which is breaking

On the weekend of the vote . . . .

Oh, my turn. “Thanks, Paul, for making . . . .”

There!  Ego tamped.  Now, speak.  By rote.

*This piece is a parody–not an exact parody–of Victorian poet Robert Browning’s “Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister,” published in 1842.

Browning (1812-1889) is best known for his dramatic monologues, in which a speaker (not the author) unwittingly reveals himself to be quite different from his public persona.

“Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister” is a variant of the dramatic monologue.

Based upon my own observations, along with some recent conversations with friends, including Andrew Breitbart, who recently spent some time talking with Palin, my image of Palin has been becoming more well-defined of late. Take, for instance, the only real criticism I could find in the Newsweek piece. It jibes with another criticism I’ve observed, that she too often engages her critics directly, as opposed to allowing surrogates to do it for her. Are these valid criticisms of Palin? Along with providing some insight into her - she’s a fighter, it might also tell you much about how you view Palin. If you’re looking for an ordinary politician, Sarah Palin ain’t it.

This formula—bucking Republicans and counting on the situational cooperation of Democrats—made for a fragile governing model, one further attenuated by the fact that political insiders found Palin too sensitive to criticism and too eager to deal in payback. But to the public she was a heroine, with an approval rating above 80 percent two years into her term, making her by far the most popular governor in the country.

Once I put aside any notion of a mostly plastic, glad-handing politician and contemplated how I myself might actually react in this, or that, situation Palin has faced, a clearer image of her as an every man politician began to take shape. There’s a good chance I’d have handled a good deal of the criticism precisely as has she in this, a new media age. And she is far more in touch with the concept of new media, than is almost any other American politician – hence the reliance on Facebook and Twitter to get her message out.

“The mainstream press is becoming less and less relevant,” she said, adding that she would have no hesitation in shunning media outlets she does not trust.

As The Undefeated makes clear (my earlier review here), she’s not in politics because her daddy held office, or won, or was denied a Presidential nomination, or election. She entered politics as an individual because she cared about the relationship between government and the people and wanted to make a difference. Sarah Palin was not schooled by some mostly Eastern U.S. Preparatory and Secondary school system one might think is the only acceptable schooling for serious American political leadership today. In fact, in many ways, that monopoly has all but driven America off a cliff - including under the current administration.

Of course, Ronald Reagan wasn’t a product of it, either, as a matter of fact.

Still, even some of her biggest fans may have a mistaken notion of the kind of politician Sarah Palin actually is. True, she’s a Conservative … but she’s also a common sense pragmatist, not an uncompromising ideologue, as portions of the media would have one believe. As wonderful as conservative ideals are, rigid thinking can not always solve every problem. As her tenure in Alaska demonstrated, first and foremost, Sarah Palin is a problem solver.

The centerpiece achievement was a significant tax hike on the profits derived from Alaskan oil, which pro-industry Republicans opposed, and which passed only because Palin allied herself with the legislature’s Democrats (who insisted, to Palin’s acquiescence, on raising the tax even higher).

So, why are there not more establishment voices calling for such a visible and pragmatic Palin to toss her hat in the ring? My guess is, because she is more one of us, than any political establishment. If you begin to understand – and accept that – you may be beginning to understand Palin and what she represents to so many. Unfortunately, as shocking as it may seem, the fact is, more than fearing the political opposition in the form of Democrats, or Republicans, what America’s political establishment fears most of all is “we the people.” That, in large part, is what Ronald Reagan represented leading to such strong opposition to him from the GOP establishment, as well.

“You know, I rarely use the term ‘bipartisanship,’” she said. “I use the term ‘independent.’ Piper’s middle name is ‘Indie.’ That’s the Alaskan way of life. Seventy-three percent of Alaskans aren’t registered Republican or Democrat, they’re independent. Todd’s not a registered Republican. Most of the people I know, they’re independent people saying, ‘Just use common sense.’”

If there’s a conclusion to be inferred from the Newsweek item, it would seem to be that she is running. Her family seems on board with it and that is the only real obstacle she mentions, after all. However, that’s merely an inference and, as with some other potential late entries, the question remains open. What’s also true of Palin is that, until she says it, assuming otherwise is no guarantee of accuracy.

What is clear is that her road to any presumed GOP nomination would not be easy, or typical. It would likely require a far greater number of people to actually understand Sarah Palin apart from the many characters and caricatures the media has made her out to be. That said, if it did, or does happen, I do believe that, not only could she win the GOP nomination, but she could win the Presidency, as well.

At this point thirty-years ago, Reagan was thought to be both unelectable and unacceptable, even as a nominee. Not only did he go on to win the nomination and Presidency in 1980, his landslide re-election in 1984 remains as a testament to the success of common sense, mostly conservative-based politics capable of reaching across, if not erasing, party lines in America.

I wouldn’t want to have to assign odds as to the likelihood that Sarah Palin could repeat such a hallmark record of achievement in American politics. However, if one thinks it impossible at this point, then one may not know, or understand, Sarah Palin and her appeal, or the American people, at all. After all, both are extraordinary and have proven themselves capable of accomplishing rather exceptional things before.

The gist of their argument is that there are parallels to be drawn between the racist assassination of MLK, and the massacre committed in Arizona.

An Echo of the King Killing

Then, as now, the country was fighting an intractable and apparently interminable war against a hard-to-find enemy on the other side of the planet — a conflict that had drained the nation’s coffers and left the populace fatigued and paranoid. Then as now, the airwaves seethed with reactionary speech. Then, as now, gun sales were going up, up , up.

What a sweeping and condescending generalization, “fatigued and paranoid”.

When Newsweek cites reactionary speech, are they referring to Frances Fox Piven’s call for violent rioting,  or are they referencing the rioting Democrat-party-organized “arrestables” who have been purposefully unleashed on American cities over the past several years, with the explicit goal of political intimidation and disruption? (RICO, anyone???)

By the yard stick circled above, almost every attempted murder committed by a lunatic has “an echo of the King killing.”

Why doesn’t Newsweek just dig up MLK’s body and spit on his corpse?  Or is that somehow worse than pimping his murder to score fleeting political points? Tough call.

While Weingarten says all the right things and uses all the necessary poll-tested phrases, she really wants to maintain the status quo.  No tenure reform.  No need to judge teachers by any measure other than seniority.

But in an interview with Newsweek, she made this curious statement, in response to Bill Gates saying, “We need to measure what they do, and then have incentives for the other teachers to learn those things:”

“Football teams do this all the time,” Weingarten responded. “They look at the tape after every game. Sometimes they do it during the game. They’re constantly deconstructing what is working and what isn’t working. And they’re jettisoning what isn’t working and building up on what is working, and doing it in a team-like approach.”

That’s correct – they do. It’s too bad that public education does not operate more like the NFL.

Here’s an idea. Let’s have the NEA and AFT become the owners of a new NFL franchise. For a lack of a better name, we’ll call the new team the Thugs.

Players on the Thugs’ roster would receive tenure after two years, like they do in New York City Public Schools.

They can play on the Thugs as long as they’d like, regardless of their skill level.  And players would be judged not for their ability to score touchdowns or sack quarterbacks, but the number of years they’ve been in the NFL.

Over time, the Thugs’ roster would be filled with 50- and 60-year old players, raking in the big bucks while losing game after game.

Does anyone believe that the hypothetical Thugs, with their incredible job security, would be competitive with the teams that compensate players based on their performance and frequently alter their rosters to maintain an edge?

It would be wonderful if public education would operate more like the NFL, where you get paid for results and released for incompetence. Maybe then American K-12 students would receive the instruction they truly deserve.