“Isn’t this,” Jennifer Rubin asks, “proof that George W. Bush’s rap as a ‘unilateralist’ is bunk?“

President Barack Obama has touted his emphasis on multilateralism in the U.S. military intervention in Libya, but, for political, operational, and legal reasons, Obama’s “coalition of the willing” is smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War. The Cable compiled a chart listing all the countries that contributed at least some military assets to the five major military operations in which the United States participated in a coalition during the last 20 years: the 1991 Gulf War (32 countries participating), the 1995 Bosnia mission (24 countries), the 1999 Kosovo mission (19 countries), the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan (48 countries), and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (40 countries), at the height of the size of each coalition. As of today, only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to providing a military contribution to the Libya war.

. . . .

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that the administration’s effort to build the coalition was hampered by its stated desire to hand off the leadership of the Libya intervention to NATO.  

“[I]f you [focus on the handoff], you don’t deserve a lot of credit for leadership,” he said. “Obama in his deference to [getting out of the lead] has not only wanted other countries to do as much as they could, he has essentially forgone his responsibility to build the coalition.”

Is that scholar from a left-of-center think tank thus saying that we’d be better off with the type of leadership George W. Bush provided?

That makes two of us….

From HotAir.com:

Rush Limbaugh offered that off-hand endorsement of Marco Rubio after Florida’s newest Senator announced that he would oppose any more short-term spending bills in Congress.

Meanwhile, Rubio has a few other ideas as well, notably to cut off the EPA’s efforts to expand its regulatory reach. His office announced earlier today that Rubio would attach an amendment to “every major bill” in the Senate to cut off funding for EPA enforcement of “job-destroying numeric nutrients regulations,” as well as rescind authority for spending of any unused stimulus funding.

One could argue that Rubio is too “inexperienced” to be a serious Presidential contender.  Well, I don’t recall the current Oval Office occupant sticking in any job longer than two years.  Rubio has him up on that by a mile.  And, Rubio was the Speaker of the House in the Florida Legislature.  Those two facts are just off the top of my head.

I’ve been wondering when Rubio would begin to flex his leadership muscles in the Senate.  Mark this week as the beginning of the rise of Marco Rubio.

[RELATED:  House Budget Chmn. Paul Ryan explains how America is screwed by our debt problem.]

-Bruce (GayPatriot) 

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. . . . He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it … he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism, and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Barack Obama, Jan. 14, 2008

Like many fans of the greatest domestic policy president of the last century, I’ve been trying to find an appropriate way to remember/honor this great man on the centennial of his birth.

Many have written eloquently about his nature, his background, his political philosophy and his accomplishments.  Others are planning magnificent celebrations.  We here at GayPatriot are putting together a small event in Los Angeles.  E-mail me for details.

Yet, as I remember this marvelous man, two things stand one, first, his love for Nancy.  He was born good, but she made him great.  And the second thing perhaps stands out because of the times we’re in and the solutions his successor (in the White House) has proposed.  In contrast to the incumbent chief executive, Ronald Reagan knew in his heart that Americans didn’t need the heavy hand of the state to get them out of an economic mess.  Indeed, he believed that it was the heavy hand of the state which got them into that mess — and which was preventing them from finding a means of egress.

“Government,” he reminded us in his first inaugural address, ” is not the solution to the problem.  Government is the problem”:

Seems that the ideals which define the Tea Party parallel nearly perfectly those put forward so eloquently by the Great Communicator.

Ronald Reagan had great faith in his fellow Americans.  He didn’t believe in seeking solutions in Washington, D.C., but in the ingenuity of the American people, in factories in Ohio, farms in Iowa, labs in North Carolina and yes, even in garages in California.

The Gipper had confidence in the American ideal, belief in American exceptionalism and was convinced that America’s best days were ahead.  Oh, and, he had a deep and enduring love for Loyal Davis‘s little girl.

Perhaps I’m wrong and it wouldn’t have made a difference if Tyler Clementi had had an older gay friend or mentor to whom he could turn in his moment of mental anguish.

To be sure, it’s not just this story that makes me think of mentoring.  The issue of mentoring has been much on my mind since I first started wrestling with my sexuality.  The first gay “role model” I had was perhaps one of the most negative influences on my life and on my family as well.  And I always wondered if my coming out would have been any smoother had I met an older gay man capable of showing any compassion for my particular situation.

It is perhaps due in large part to his (negative) influence that I was so drawn to the goddess Athene when I read, re-read and listened to the Odyssey in the years after college and in the course of my graduate studies in Mythology.  Her gentle guidance stood in stark contrast to his arrogant indifference.  She both helps the hero’s son Telemachus find his first (male) friend — and facilitates his reconciliation with his own father.  It’s as if Homer knew that we human beings need divine guidance to navigate the treacherous waters when we first leave home and find our way in the world.

This story has stirred up so much with so many of us, in large part because we see ourselves in this young man, recalling the awkwardness of our freshman year in college, our first year away from home, when our aspirations often (unbeknownst to us at the time) conflicted with one another, finding our way in the world while seeking to belong in a new (and often) foreign environment.

Perhaps, the mentor issue comes to my mind because of my own experiences.  And other things surely must come to mind to other individuals, gay and straight alike.

The bottom question we need to ask is what can we do to make that journey less treacherous for young men and young women who differ from the social norm.   (more…)

Perhaps, it was reading about the paucity of men and women with experience in the real-world of job creation coupled with this article about Donald Berwick’s associations last night that caused me to take note of this fragment from Sophocles’ play about the “lesser” Ajax:

Kings are wise because of the company of wise men.

Would it not then follow that kings become fools with the company of foolish men?  Haven’t I seen something like this in Proverbs before?

INSPIRED BY THE COMMENTS:  Gene in Pennsylvania reminded me of something else I had seen on the web related to this post:

Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Sunday that President Obama’s political advisers are out of touch with average Americans and need to “spend some time outside Washington.”

“The people around the president have really misjudged what goes on elsewhere in the country, other than Washington,” Dean told Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“I don’t think this is true of the president, but I do think his people, his political people, have got to go out and spend some time outside Washington for a while.”

But, Howard, by Sophocles’ standards, Obama is out of touch with the rest of the country.

PACIFIC OCEAN (July 24, 2010) The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) transits the Pacific Ocean with ships assigned to Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010 combined task force as part of a photo exercise north of Hawaii. RIMPAC, the world’s largest multinational maritime exercise is a biennial event which allows participating nations to work together to build trust and enhance partnerships needed to improve maritime security. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Dylan McCord/Released)

Awesome photo!  I wonder if the USS Obama will be an oil skimming boat?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Last week, Roger Simon asked a question which has kept me thinking well into this one, “Does Barack Obama want to be president?”

Ever since viewing his depressing and disconnected “energy” speech last week, I have been mulling whether Barack Obama actually wants to be president anymore. That was an address given by a man who looked very much like he didn’t want to be there, didn’t want to continue. He appeared slumped and worn, as if he aged eighteen years in eighteen months. His demeanor was oddly distracted.

I am not being metaphorical here — I am quite serious. The more I have thought about this, the more I am convinced Barack Obama no longer wishes to be president. The degree that he admits this to himself, I am not sure. But I rather suspect that in the small hours of the morning he fantasizes he were anywhere but 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And who could blame him?

Now, much as I admire, respect and just plain like Roger (having met him and his lovely bride Sheryl) on numerous occasions, I have to disagree with him on this one–even as I think he’s onto something with his question and his post.  (Just read the whole thing.)

Roger’s right that Obama didn’t seem very engaged in that speech, treating it as most of us would treat a visit to a grouchy relative, an obligation we must perform to keep up appearances.  The president just plain seems frustrated by the unexpected crises a chief executive must face.  He’d rather give speeches and otherwise get the adulation of his fans (including especially various assorted celebrities).

Not just that, instead of considering the circumstances of the day, he wants to stick to the big-government agenda he’s been pushing all along.  It’s as if nothing has changed since the campaign.  (No wonder he and his fellow Democrats stick to their tired bromides about “inherited” problems and “failed [GOP] policies.”) (more…)

One notion that comes up frequently on conservative blogs, including this one, about the president’s agenda is that it is nothing new, merely the codifying of various items which have been on various items on the Democratic wish list for the past generation or two (or three).

Just, look at health care, Obama pushed through an overhaul whose unpopularity seemed to grow in direct proportion to the attention he gave to it.  And yet even after Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, largely on public opposition to said legislation, the president persisted in pushing it through Congress — even though the American people made clear they didn’t want it.  

He seeks to move public opinion after the legislation has passed, not pass the legislation in response to public outcry.  For the president and his Democrats, their agenda trumps the popular will — and the current needs of American society.

A real leader addresses the concerns of the people and responds to circumstances with solutions appropriate to the problem at hand.  When crises emerge, he turns his attention to them, working relentlessly at meeting the needs of the day, even putting aside other items on his long-term agenda to do so.  See George W. Bush and the attacks of 9/11 or Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Second World War.

“Presidents,” David Paul Kuhn writes at RealClearPolitics, “are hostage to events“:

But that’s a half-truth. Presidencies rise and fall far more by their response to great events than to the event itself.

“Presidents are ultimately judged by how they handle the unexpected,” presidential historian Richard Norton Smith wrote in an email exchange. “JFK may have blown the Bay of Pigs but more than recovered a year later in Cuba. … Just as he moved away from his cautious approach to civil rights as newspaper pictures and TV reports from Birmingham — the equivalent of today’s unstopped pipe at the bottom of the Gulf — made him realize that the presidency is, indeed, ultimately a place of moral leadership.”

Via Instapundit.  Emphasis added.

But, when facing the unexpected, Obama has been slow to shift course, preferring to keep his focus on his legislative agenda rather than focus on the unexpected crisis.   (more…)

Alright, two quick things first:

Point One: James Bunning is a 7-time All-Star, Hall of Fame pitcher who retired with a 3.27 ERA (albeit in the National League). He kicks ass.

Point Two: He’s not handled his interactions with the press very well. Perfect example is his confrontation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl we’ve all seen a million times by now. Okay, Karl was asking a very stupid question that Bunning had answered a million times already (see more below) and was just goading him for dramatic effect. But Bunning, someone who’s been in Washington since 1987, should be better at such things.

Okay, now on with the post:

THANK GOD FOR JIM BUNNING
(more…)

If The Great American Philosopher were here, watching the State of Our Union I do believe he would reflect upon words he wrote hundreds of years ago:

1775 June 26-July 6. “Our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty.” (Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms, B.1.215)

1787 Nov. 13. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” (to W. S. Smith, B.12.356)

I recalled the ‘tree of liberty’ quote when I wrote the James O’Keefe piece yesterday.  While luckily no blood was shed, I would submit that O’Keefe did spare some of his individual liberty in the cause of the greater good:  protecting the rest of ours.

If only all of us were as brave to stand up to the tyrannical Federal Government that has taken so much of our freedoms away for the past several decades.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Back when I was a lad, every summer our family loaded up the Chevy Suburban (or Ford Van which replaced it) and headed West or Northeast for a camping trip.  One year, we visited Wyoming, Montana and Alberta.  After hiking i Yellowstone National Park, our parents planned to take us to Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness, but one of my younger brothers took ill. They changed the plans, we headed to Great Falls to seek medical attention.

A visit to a doctor and a few days rest at a local Holiday Inn and soon my brother was back to normal.

The lesson of this anecdote should be familiar to anyone who has found himself in a position of responsibility.  When the circumstances change, you need to change your plans.  My parents recognized that with my brother’s illness, we could not continue the trip as planned.

So too should Obama recognize that with increasing evidence of a growing terror threat and continuing uncertainty about the economy, he has to turn his attention from regulatory schemes like health care and cap and trade and focus on jobs and national security.

Sometimes, I wonder if the president pushed through such a massive “stimulus” at the outset of his Administration, assuming that releasing so much cash would be certain to create jobs.  The economy would pick up, allowing Democrats to focus on their pet big-government projects.

But, things didn’t work out as planned.

That’s why this Democrat needs to learn from FDR.  Had it not been for the wars in Europe and the Far East, had that Democrat bid for a third term in 1940, he likely would have lost the presidential contest that fall, to be known to history as an inspiring failure.  But, as the threat to Western Civilization grew, he pivoted to meet the emerging challenges.  Magazine covers notwithstanding, the latest Democrat to occupy the White House shows few signs of following in his illustrious predecessor’s footsteps.

The “stimulus” hasn’t worked.  He needs develop new and different programs to increase employment.

His national security team offered a ham-handed response to the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253.  He needs shake up that team and devote greater attention to the terrorist threat.   Obama, as Rudy Giuliani contends, may have “turned the corner” in his understanding of that threat, but he needs show that he has made countering it a priority. (more…)

Since we named Dick Cheney the “Conservative of the Decade” partly for staying pure to his conservative principles about American security in a time of war — I’m not surprised that today the former Veep came out swinging against the incompetence and indifference of the Obama Administration concerning the Islamists’ War Against America.

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war.  He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”

Ouch… that had to have left a mark.  What gives Cheney such power in his argument is that he stands with a moral conviction to protect this nation.  What lacks in Obama is any passion whatsoever to comprehend this existential threat to our Republic in an age where nuclear weapons can go rogue.

Again, I think by 2012 — a majority of Americans will wish Cheney was back in government in some capacity.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Despite the Obama Administration’s efforts to cover up the ongoing war against America by Islamists, the Muslim terrorists are obviously undeterred in their plans to carry out war against our homeland.

Airliner attack fails over Detroit; Northwest Ohioans on board witness incident - T0ledo Blade (h/t – Amanda Carpenter)

A Northwest Airlines passenger from Nigeria who said he was acting on al-Qaeda’s instructions set off an explosive device Friday in a failed terrorist attack on the plane as it was preparing to land in Detroit, federal officials said.

 Flight 253 had 278 passengers aboard, including northwest Ohio residents who saw the incident.

The flight was 20 minutes from the airport when what sounded like a firecracker exploded, witnesses said.  One passenger jumped over others and tried to subdue the man. Shortly afterward, the suspect was taken to a front-row seat with leg burns.  One U.S. intelligence official said the explosive device was a mix of powder and liquid that failed to fully detonate.

The White House said it believed it was an attempted act of terrorism, and stricter security measures were imposed on airline travel. Those measures were not specified.  A Northwest Airlines passenger from Nigeria who said he was acting on al-Qaeda’s instructions set off an explosive device Friday in a failed terrorist attack on the plane as it was preparing to land in Detroit, federal officials said.

 Flight 253 had 278 passengers aboard, including northwest Ohio residents who saw the incident.

 The flight was 20 minutes from the airport when what sounded like a firecracker exploded, witnesses said.

One passenger jumped over others and tried to subdue the man. Shortly afterward, the suspect was taken to a front-row seat with leg burns.

One U.S. intelligence official said the explosive device was a mix of powder and liquid that failed to fully detonate.

The White House said it believed it was an attempted act of terrorism, and stricter security measures were imposed on airline travel. Those measures were not specified.

First let me point out one simple fact:  While nearly all levels of the US government seem paralyzed to do anything lately, we have more evidence of the American public — specifically this one passenger — who will do what it takes to protect his nation. 

Moving forward I believe Congress should look into our Homeland Security practices immediately.  There are many questions that Gestapo Janet has to answer for.  Is she too consumed on cracking down on “right-wing extremists” that she dropped the ball on a worldwide war declared on this nation?  Did the Obama Adminstration take its eye off the ball in 2009 while trying to ram healthcare reform down our throats?  Has Obama spent too much time focusing on Afghanistan, and not enough time on Yemen — where there increasing reports of Iran-sponsored al-Qaeda groups gaining strength?

We all know that Senator Obama would have asked Congress to investigate the Bush Administration under reverse circumstances had this airline attack happened two years ago.  So I hope Barry’s 2008 so-far empty pledge of transparency will at least be honored when it comes to protecting American citizens.

We stayed safe on our homeland for seven years after the 9/11 attacks.  The American public demands to know why there has been one successful terror attack (Ft. Hood), and one that nearly happened yesterday under the watch of our new President.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Perhaps, as one of his first acts as President of the United States, instead of returning a bust of Winston Churchill to our friends in the United Kingdom, Barack Obama had studied the life and leadership of that great man, he could better lead this great nation.   That Englishman “inherited” far worse problems from his two immediate predecessors than the American did from his.

And wheareas instead of demonstrating “bottomless reservoirs of gracelessness” in faulting those predecessors for “the terrible mess he inherited” as Obama has done toward his immediate predecessor, Churchill, according to Paul Johnson, showed magnanimity toward those flawed leaders:

Churchill wasted an extraordinarily small amount of his time and emotional energy on the meanness of life:  recrimination, shifting the blame onto others, malice, revenge seeking, dirty tricks, spreading rumors, harboring grudges, waging vendettas.  Having fought hard, he washed his hands and went on to the next contest.  It is one reason for his success.  There is nothing more draining and exhausting than hatred.  And malice is bad for the judgment.  Churchill loved to forgive and make up.  His treatment of Baldwin and Chamberlain* after he became prime minister is an object lesson in sublime magnanimity.  Nothing gave him more pleasure than to replace enmity with friendship, not least with the Germans.

An object lesson Obama is in sore need of learning.  In his speech on Afghanistan, by one pundit’s count, he “adverted at least half a dozen times to the supposed blunders of his predecessor.”  And he’s not the only official in his Administration who eschews such Churchillian magnanimity in order to lambaste George W. Bush.  In an email to supporters touting Obama’s Afghanistan speech, Vice President Biden “said of the new policy towards Afghanistan: ‘It’s a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed.’”

Why must they always define their policies by contrasting them to the “failed” ones of W instead defending them on their own merits?

Wonder how we could make a teaching moment for these two?

* (more…)

It is a fitting tribute on the 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall to rightly note the man who challenged the evils of Communism, rallied his nation behind him and defeated the oppressive regimes.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has history right as she told our US Congress last week. America won the Cold War through leadership, not waffling:

I think of John F. Kennedy, who won the hearts of the Berliners, when, during his visit in 1961, after the wall had been built, he reached out to the desperate citizens of Berlin by saying, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” I think of Ronald Reagan, who, far earlier than most, clearly saw the sign of the times and, standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, already in 1987, called out, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” This appeal shall remain forever in my heart.

I thank George Herbert Walker Bush for the trust he placed in Germany and then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl, offering something of immeasurable value to us Germans already in May 1989: partnership in leadership. What a generous offer 40 years after the end of the Second World War.

God Bless Ronald Reagan. No doubt, the greatest President I will see in my lifetime. Today is one of those days when I remember what it is to be an American and the awesome responsibility we have as being freedom’s last beacon of hope.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sorry for my absence from the blog.  I blame my real job and a nasty sinus infection that just won’t go away.

Anyway, I was just weeding through a ton of GayPatriot email and found this devastating summary by Dick Morris of President Obama’s current political situation.  I usually give Dick Morris just about grain of salt, so it was the Zogby poll numbers that really caught my eye.  (That would be the traditionally Democrat-leaning Zogby poll)

• People under 30 — long a key element of his support — give him no better than break-even ratings, with 41 percent approving and 41 percent disapproving of the job he’s doing, according to Zogby.

• Only 75 percent of Democrats, who formerly have supported Obama strongly, now approve of his performance in office. Zogby reports that this represents a slide of more than 10 points over the summer.

• Even among blacks, only 74 percent approve of the job he’s doing (also a drop of more than 10 points).

• Hispanics, who voted for him by a margin of more than 40 points, now break even (36-36) when rating his performance.

• Independents, the key swing group in our politics, now deliver a sharply negative 37-50 verdict on Obama’s job performance. The elderly also give him negative ratings by 42-51.

Whoa.  Obama’s popularity crash is truly breathtaking and something I never thought I would see so soon.  Morris points out, rightly, that this leaves Obama with few good options on healthcare reform.

He obviously can’t get 60 votes in the Senate for his health-care proposals in their current form. No Republican will support them, and moderate Democrats aren’t likely to vote with him.

If he tries to pass it with 50 votes, using so-called reconciliation procedures, he may also fail — because he’d also lose the votes of less-moderate Democrats who’d quail at using parliamentary tricks to pass such a radical, unpopular program.

If Obama waters down his proposals to attract moderate support, he’d lose votes on the left — perhaps more than he’d gain, at this point.

Yet the longer he takes to resolve this political problem, the more his ratings will slip — diminishing his power to achieve anything. No president with support in the 30s would be able to push through a program like his health-care agenda.

Healthcare reform has become a death spiral that looks like a bottomless pit for Obama and fellow Democrats. Morris points out that Clinton recovered by tacking to the right. I was always amazed how Clinton had an epiphany and discovered his interest a balanced budget in 1995; following the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, of course.

But what is Obama to do when clearly he has only radical leftist bones in  his body?

What to do, Chairman Obama?  What to do?   Ah, I know…. talk to the chillllllllllldren.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

It has been a week since Sarah Palin announced her intention to resign as Governor of Alaska later this month.  As a Palin supporter, while somewhat sympathetic to her situation given the continuing assault from the media and their allies on the left, I am disappointed that this good woman decided not to tough it out and show her courage, her resilience under fire–as she did during last fall’s campaign.

While appreciating the many accomplishments of Sarah Palin (many more than the incumbent US President when he launched his first bid for national office), she was not my choice to be the GOP standard bearer in 2012.  I believe she should wait until 2020–after she had completed two terms as Governor — and perhaps had moved out to the Senate, defeating the Last Frontier’s accidental Democratic Senator Mark Begich.

On several occasions, I have compared Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan.  Like the Gipper, she has a natural stage presence and energizes conservatives.  Unlike her, however, when he made his successful bid for the White House, he had completed two full terms as Govenor of a state — and “served” for sixteen years as the de facto head of the conservativce movement.  Not just that, he had spent several years educating himself, studying conservative ideas and economic theory.

Yes, we conservatives all love her energy and appreciate how she, just by her very existence, enrages the heads of left-wingers to “explode,” but that is not enough to make her a successful presidential nominee or Commander-in-Chief.  She has the raw talent to lead this great nation, she’s just not there yet.  If she had stayed on as Governor, she could have better developed her talents, turning that potential into leadership on a daily basis.

She can still do that in other roles, as did the Gipper before he made his first bid for public office.  But, she won’t be ready in 2012, though she will surely be more ready than the man she would succeed should she win that year.  And his first six months in office have shown how we don’t want a chief executive who needs on the job training.

Sarah Palin has it within her to be as Ronald Reagan was both to the GOP and to the nation, galvanizing conservatives into an effective political force and restoring the nation’s greatness and economic health.  I fear, however, that the choice she made last week takes her one more step away from that goal.

But, elective office is not he only path to leadership.  She could yet take on the mantle of the Gipper.

RELATED:   Sarah Palin and the Right.

In his short biography on the greatest man of the century just concluded, British historian John Keegan writes:

It is now often thought that Churchill became prime minister because of the success of the German blitzkrieg, which produced the strategic catastrophe against which he had warned throughout the appeasement years.  It is ironic, in retrospect, to perceive that the appeasers were brought down by their mishandling of the comparatively insignificant sideshow in Norway, leaving Churchill to inherit the catastrophe he had argued so long to avert, during the first hours of its unrolling.

Emphasis added.

In May of 1940, Wintson Churchill inherited a crisis far worse than would Barack Obama nearly sixty-nine years later.  Not just that, repeatedly throughout the 1930s, that great man had warned of just such a catastrophe and had urged his colleagues in Parliament to take action to avert the crisis–on numerous occasions.

By contrast, while then-Senator Obama did write one letter expressing concern about the mortgage mess, he never proposed (or even signed onto) legislation designed to avert the financial meltdown.  Churchill thus had more reason to whine about the crisis he had “inherited,” but never did. Churchill warned repeatedly before the catastrophe.  Obama whines repeatedly after he was elected in large part because Americans had better confidence in  him to deal with the consequences of the catastrophe.

Maybe Obama should ask our friends across the pond to return the bust of Churchill he recently returned to he can ponder the last lion‘s lesson of leadership.

I had printed out Michael Barone’s latest Examiner column, Dodge facts, skip details, govern Chicago-style, to read at the gym, but got caught up in the book I was reading that I neglected it until just before bed Monday night.

Would it that I had read it earlier because he articulates a thesis similar to one I had put forward in my primary post of the day on Monday, only Barone expresses himself far better than I did.  In my post reflecting on the President’s “tone deaf” visit to the ice cream parlor while Tehran burns, I contended that

Watching Obama’s presidency unfold, it seems hs agility on offense is related to the same skill which makes him such an effective speaker with a teleprompter.  He’s great when he follows a predetermined plan.

Having studied the President far more closely, Barone, in a similar vein, offers

Obama likes to execute long-range strategies but suffers from cognitive dissonance when new facts render them inappropriate. His 2008 campaign was a largely flawless execution of a smart strategy, but he was flummoxed momentarily when the Russians invaded Georgia and when John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. On domestic policy, he has been executing his long-range strategy of vastly expanding government, but may be encountering problems as voters show unease at huge increases on spending.

As with anything by Barone, it goes without saying that one should just read the whole thing.

Simply put, Obama is not good at handling the unexpected.  It’s why, I believe, he could learn a thing or two from Captain Sullenberger.