By KARL ROVE

Last Friday, President Obama met with House Republicans in Baltimore. He took questions, parried criticisms, and allowed all of it to be put on television.

Framed as an opportunity for the president to hear from the other side, Mr. Obama’s real aim was to portray Republicans as obstructionist and boost his own public standing in the process.

Afterward, Gallup found that Mr. Obama’s approval hit 51%, up from 47% after the State of the Union address two days earlier. But in winning that small victory, Mr. Obama also further poisoned his relationship with Republicans by repeatedly saying things that are demonstrably not true.

For example, when Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling asked if the president’s new budget would, “like your old budget, triple the national debt” and increase “the cost of government to almost 25% of the economy,” Mr. Obama denied it. But that’s exactly what Mr. Obama proposed doing in his budget framework that Congress passed last April, according to both Congressional Budget Office and White House documents.

In Baltimore, Mr. Obama criticized the GOP’s response to last year’s $787 billion stimulus package saying, “I don’t understand . . . why we got opposition . . . before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas.”

In truth, the president met with congressional Republicans to talk about the stimulus package the day before the press said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey completed drafting the 1,073-page bill. What occurred was a photo-op, not an exchange of ideas. Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue were scornful of Republican input.

When Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price complained in Baltimore that the president kept saying “that Republicans have offered no ideas and no solutions,” Mr. Obama shot back, “I don’t think I said that.”

But of course Mr. Obama and his people have said that repeatedly. They did so starting in April, when White House aides swarmed Sunday talk programs to label the GOP the “party of no” and say that the party lacked both constructive ideas and vision.

For the rest of this story please go here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575043342489432552.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Face Forward Comments:

I really like Karl Rove.  This is the guy that was an advisor to Clinton.  He pulled him from the far left to a more centered political position.  From the point that Clinton began making his decisions based on the Karl Rove influence, he personally prospered and the country benefited. While there many things about Clinton that many people found offensive, he was widely applauded for his move to the center, politically.

On the other hand, we have a president now that has surrounded himself with yes men and those that are even further left of his own position.  This last week we began to see his heavily tilted, left leaning, position sway just a bit.  He is by no means making any effort to change any of his positions or policies he is however, making an effort to sound more centrist  If only he would actually  take the next step and do what is right for the people of the country.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

Dec. 6: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid talks to the media after the Senate Democratic caucus that President Obama attended on Capitol Hill in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement – even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery.

Senate Republicans on Monday called Reid’s comments “offensive” and “unbelievable.”

But Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era.

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ’slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ’slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’”

He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

For the rest of this article please go here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/07/reid-compares-health-care-reform-foes-slavery-supporters/

Face Forward Comments:

I long ago gave up hope that politicians would hit the bottom of the mud pit and not fall any further into mire.  Once again, I can sleep in the knowledge that our political leadership will, when all else fails, resort to name calling and slinging mud.  I will have to give Harry Reid a thumbs up though, I would have never thought it possible that Opposing government owned health care could be equated to slavery.  Nice one, Harry.

I also find it amazing that the Democrats can point fingers at the Republicans with the words slavery on their lips.  As it was the democrats that tried to keep millions enslaved by trying to block civil rights legislation.  Welcome to American politics.

There is no way he can grow the government without attracting more lobbyists and more political acrimony.

By FRED BARNES – WSJ

One insight distinguished Barack Obama from the other presidential candidates last year. While he lacked experience or a special grasp of issues, Mr. Obama said he uniquely understood what ails Washington, and what was causing the endless squabbling and bitter stalemate on important issues. If elected, he said he would change the way business is done in Washington, end the partisan deadlock and the ideological polarization.

“Change must come to Washington,” Mr. Obama said in a June 2008 speech. “I have consistently said when it comes to solving problems,” he told Jake Tapper of ABC News that same month, “I don’t approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective.”

Mr. Obama also decried the prominent role played by lobbyists. “Lobbyists aren’t just a part of the system in Washington, they’re part of the problem,” Mr. Obama said in a May 2008 campaign speech.

I was reminded of this last statement by a recent headline on the front page of USA Today. It read: “Health care fight swells lobbying. Number of organizations hiring firms doubles in ‘09.” The article suggested that what Mr. Obama had promised to fix had only gotten worse.

Indeed that’s the case. Washington is more partisan than ever, and more polarized. Even on a purely procedural vote to begin Senate debate on health-care reform this past Saturday, every Democrat voted one way (yes), every Republican the other (no).

With rare exception and with no objection from the president, Democrats draft bills with no input from Republicans. In return, Republicans vote in lockstep against Democratic legislation. Every House Republican voted against the stimulus, all but one against liberal health-care reform, and all but eight against cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House earlier this year.

Why has the president’s publicly expressed vision of a kinder, gentler Washington failed to materialize? I think Mr. Obama—while hardly the only person at fault—is chiefly responsible.

He might have spawned a different Washington, a less divided town with Democrats firmly in charge but Republicans actively involved. The bonus for Mr. Obama and Democrats would be higher popularity and better prospects in 2010 midterm elections. Instead, the president made three strategic mistakes—or, really, misreadings of the political landscape—and they’ve come back to haunt him and his party.

First, Mr. Obama misread the meaning of the 2008 election. It wasn’t a mandate for a liberal revolution. His victory was a personal one, not an ideological triumph of liberalism. Yet Mr. Obama, his aides and Democratic leaders in Congress have treated it as a mandate to radically change policy directions in this country. They are pushing forward one liberal initiative after another. As a result, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has dropped along with the popularity of his agenda.

Second, Mr. Obama misread his own ability to sway the public. He is a glib, cool, likeable speaker whose sentences have subjects and verbs. During the campaign, he gave dazzling speeches about hope and change that excited voters. His late-night speech at a Democratic dinner in Des Moines on Nov. 10, 2007, prior to the Iowa caucuses, convinced me he’d win the presidential nomination.

Third, Mr. Obama misread Republicans. They felt weak and vulnerable after losing two straight congressional elections and watching John McCain’s presidential bid fall flat. They were afraid to criticize the newly elected president. If he had offered them minimal concessions, many of them would have jumped aboard his policies. If that had happened, the president could have boasted of achieving bipartisan compromise on the stimulus and other policies. He let the chance slip away.

Red the entire well written article at The Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574555471947300090.html

MADISON, Wis. (Reuters) – A year after his historic election, President Barack Obama sought to remind Americans on Wednesday the biggest problems he is grappling with — from the economy to the war in Afghanistan — are the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

With his approval ratings down from once-lofty levels and Tuesday’s Democratic election losses raising questions about his political clout, Obama held no special ceremony to mark the anniversary of his election as America’s first black president.

He instead traveled to Wisconsin to appear before a friendly audience in a school gymnasium and promote education as a pillar of his economic recovery efforts.

Obama was elected on a promise of sweeping change after eight years under Bush, but many Americans are increasingly expressing impatience that his pledge has yet to bear fruit.

He used the preamble of his speech to insist his administration had indeed had important successes and also to remind Americans of the litany of daunting challenges he inherited when he took office in January.

“One year ago, Americans all across this country went to the polls and cast ballots for the future they wanted to see,” Obama said.

But he said his administration was also confronted with a “financial crisis that threatened to plunge our economy into a Great Depression, the worst that we’ve seen in generations.”

“We had record deficits, two wars, frayed alliances around the world,” Obama added.

For the rest of the story please go here

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-43692420091104

Face Forward Comments:

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I grew tired of the Bush excuses a long time ago. And now one year later he is standing in a High School Gym (his favorite audience) still trying to blame Bush. Obama, why didn’t he  mentioned the 2 years of the Democratic controlled congress that fought Bush on everything. How about Barney Frank’s destruction of Fannie Mae, or Chris Dodd’s incompetence in managing the oversight of the Banking system.

 Never mind, now I remember why you didn’t mention the failures of your party, you were too busy apologizing to the Muslims for the World trade Center attack that we (your words) provoked by being arrogant.  You were too busy taking over our automobile manufacturing industries so you could pay back the unions that elected you, you were too busy throwing Jeremiah Wright, (your old friend, pastor and white man hater) under the bus, you were too busy appointing Czars that held your Communistic view point and you were too busy hating on tax payers that invested in and built this nation. Here is some advice, “shut up, stop blaming others”, all of America, even those who are under your spell, are tired of it..

As far as Barack not achieving, he dosent have to apologize for not getting anything done.  Had he been successful with what he wants to accomplish, we would have all been calling each other comrade and wearing Mao T shirts by now.

Finally, I had to laugh at the frayed alliances comment by our president.  I am pretty sure our historically strongest allies, England and Israel might, might have a problem with that comment especailly since he has decided drop them as friends of this country. Barack is right, we do have frayed alliances however, now it’s with the countries we used to call friends.