On its Web site, GQ Magazine asks the burning question, "Has the Capital Gotten Cooler Under Obama?"  The magazine says yes and no.  But when it comes to Barack Obama and Co., you'll be relieved to know that the answer is a resounding YES!!  In a slide show, we learn that Obama is "our best-dressed prez since JFK. When he goes tieless, Ahmadinejad should take notice."  On Obama in jeans, "the loose fit seems presidential."  

Also lookin' good to GQ is Joe Biden: "The veep has terrific style. He deftly mixes colors and patterns with his shirts and ties, and his superb Hickey Freeman suits fit impeccably."  Senator John Kerry (D-MA) "looks best when dressing like the patrician he is. Super 180s suits and Hermès ties—senators ought to look senatorial."  Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is "groovier than his usual banker attire would suggest. . .  He goes for cool detail, like green ties on Saint Paddy's. And he has a thing for Panama hats."  Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) has "a sharp eye for detail and a suave color sense."

Representative John Conyers (D-MI) is a "clotheshorse" who is "a lifetime sartorial achiever."  Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) "can match sartorial splendor with Sean Combs and purples with Prince. . . "  We're told of Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY): "The dapper former roommate of Jon Stewart could almost pass for European."  And who wouldn't want to pass for European?  When it comes to speechwriter Jon Favreau, "Obama's golden boy of letters epitomizes style's new wave in D.C."

Even Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, not ostensibly a slave to fashion, qualifies for some gushing:

The sec of the interior ought to wear forty-liter hats and string ties. As a Coloradan, he's got the right, and the cabinet should somewhat resemble the Village People, don't you think?

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, by contrast, just doesn't make the cut: "The Republican Party czar looks suitably stiff in that boxy high-cut jacket."  Representative John Boehner gets the full GQ treatment:

The minority leader just looks vain. His radioactive tan appears sprayed on, his bronze hair never strays, and his ties glow in W Hotel colors against his white button-downs. Oh, and it's pronounced bay-ner, not . . ..

Representative Aaron Schock (R-IL), characterized by GQ as the "GOP's only hope for youthful charisma" gets slapped: "Though, looking at him, we can't help but think of James Bond's quip that the Windsor knot is the sign of a cad."

Only last month, the magazine named Obama its "Leader of the Year."  His administration and approval ratings might be crumbling, but at least at GQ, the news for him is always good.     

On yesterday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips shifted to "Bad Boys" mode:

Lenders, lenders -- what you gonna do when they come for you? Call it an early Christmas present for people on the edge of losing their homes. The Obama administration cracking down on mortgage companies.

We'll tell you about it.

After the break:

PHILLIPS: Well, from your health (ph) to your home, the foreclosure crisis shows no signs of letting up, so the Obama administration is trying to fight back.

Personal Finance Editor Gerri Willis joining us live from New York.

So, Gerri, new hope for struggling homeowners?

To her credit, Willis was considerably more restrained:

GERRI WILLIS, CNN PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR: Well, we'll see, Kyra. You know, lots of changes announced today to the Making Home Affordable program. And as you know, this is the program the administration has put into place to change those mortgages that people had so much trouble with during the mortgage meltdown.

Unfortunately, it's really not helping a lot of people right now. It's scheduled to help four million. It's helping less than two percent of those people right now. So here are the changes they're putting in place.

And after reporting the details:

WILLIS: The administration here trying to make some changes to it, tweaks to it here and there, to make it more effective. But the devil's in the details.

We'll be watching these reports monthly to see how many people they're helping and if more Americans are really getting assistance. But some interesting changes, Kyra. More stick, less carrot.

Gerri's cautiousness is justified.  When Obama announced his plan in Mesa last February, the New York Times reported:

“This plan will not save every home, but it will give millions of families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild,” Mr. Obama told a crowd here, in one of the communities hardest hit by the housing crisis.

Millions of families?  Not according to the the Congressional Oversight Panel's October report, "An Assessment of Foreclosure Mitigation Efforts after Six Months."  The liberal Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch.org summarized:

To no one's surprise, the Congressional Oversight Panel released a report in October showing that these programs are failing. Fewer than 2,000 of the 500,000 loan modifications then in progress had become permanent under the program, and only a handful lowered the principle. The pace of the Treasury Department programs is so slow that most people are being foreclosed upon before they are even able to apply.

Yet to Kyra Phillips, fiddling at the margins of yet another failed Obama experiment is "an early Christmas present" and "the Obama administration is trying to fight back."  Bah, humbug! 

"Unemployed, Underemployed Look to Jobs Summit for Help" is posted on ABC News's Web site today.  Authored by senior Washington correspondent John Cochran, the piece is notable in that nothing in it supports the headline.  Cochran notes:

Boosting confidence is at the top of President Obama's list at the Jobs Summit he is scheduled to host on Thursday. The invitation list includes business leaders, mayors, academics, and experts from the green jobs sector.

They will consider many proposals to boost the economy including:

More stimulus money for construction projects;

rewards for firms that hire more workers;

more steps to ease credit;

extending unemployment benefits through 2010.

But where are the unemployed and underemployed people who are looking to Obama's meeting for help?  Only two individuals are quoted in the article.  One is a man who's taken a temporary job after being laid off.  He's grateful for the chance, but understandably says "my focus remains to become a fulltime employee as soon as possible."

The other is the chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, who disagrees with those who "argue that enough has already been spent to try to jumpstart the economy."  He says, "We need to bring those deficits down, but that's not something we need to do in the near term."

Perhaps there are some naive unemployed folks who are looking to Obama's "jobs summit" for help.  If so, however, ABC News doesn't identify a single one of them.           

When outrage erupted this week over a government panel's recommendation that women have fewer mammograms, health and human services secretary Kathleen Sebelius was prepared with the Obama administration's favorite talking point: It's all Bush's fault.  Appearing Wednesday on CNN's The Situation Room, Sebelius told anchor Wolf Blitzer:

This panel was appointed by the prior administration, by former President George Bush, and given the charge to routinely look at a whole host of services to make sure that new preventive services which had benefit were being looked at by health care providers and that things that they felt did not have as much benefit as we move forward were also looked at by health care providers.

Senate majority whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) continued the theme on Friday as reported by Politico:

“The recommendation by this medical panel has been rejected by virtually everyone, including the current administration,” Durbin said. “They were appointed by President Bush.”

Not according to the New York Times's Gina Kolata.  Her piece, "Mammogram Debate Took Group by Surprise," includes background information on some members of the federal Preventive Services Task Force.  She writes:

They also said they never thought of themselves as being political appointees, much less being Bush appointees.

Medical experts become members of the task force by nominating themselves or, as usually happens, by being nominated by colleagues and professional organizations.

They are vetted by Health and Human Services to be sure they have no conflicts of interest, their names are published in the Federal Register, and they are appointed by the head of the Agency for Health Care Quality and Research, which is part of Health and Human Services.

“I grew up in the ’60s,” said one panel member, Dr. J. Sanford Schwartz, a professor of medicine, health care and economics at the University of Pennsylvania. “My kids grew up under a banner saying ‘Question authority.’ That’s where I am coming from.”

Dr. Russell Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, whose term on the task force recently ended, said, “I’m sure George Bush would never have appointed me to anything.”

In an article published on the Washington Post's Web site Saturday, Michael D. Shear and Dan Eggen note:

The task force is made up mostly of primary-care doctors and nurses who serve four-year terms and are appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The current members were appointed during President George W. Bush's administration; no new members have been nominated since Obama took office.

OK, so members were appointed during George W. Bush's administration, but not by him. That was done by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.  The organization's Web site indicates that person, since 2003, has been Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D.

Judging by her political contributions listed on OpenSecrets.org, the doctor doesn't appear to be a Republican.  Contributions were made to Democrats Paul Wellstone, Bill Bradley, Paul Soglin, Miles Rapaport, and Paul Alexander.  She's also contributed to Emily's List, which states its "members are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office."

Obviously, the members of the Preventive Services Task Force were not, as Sebelius and Durbin assert, appointed by Bush.  Yet I've seen no news organization call them on their blatant falsehood.  No reporter or interviewer has challenged them on this significant point. 

The Associated Press can assign 11 people to fact check former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's book.  CNN can fact check a Saturday Night Live sketch poking fun at Obama.    
As long as the target is George W. Bush, no fact checking is necessary.   

The Washington Post yesterday afternoon reported "President Obama delivers remarks on Ft. Hood shooting at end of tribal leaders conference." The transcript begins:

SPEAKER: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

[*] OBAMA: Please, everybody, have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference.

I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It's good to see you.

Ah, the dangers of giving shout outs without a teleprompter.  Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient.  As noted by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society:

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Crow's name is not included on the Society's Medal of Honor recipient list.  He was, however, awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, in August.

Obama, often described as "cerebral" by the mainstream media, should know the difference between the Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom, especially since he personally awarded the latter to Crow.  Don't expect his blunder to receive wide coverage.  It's not something he can blame George Bush for.       

Chief White House correspondent for U.S. News & World Report Kenneth Walsh is mighty impressed.  In "He's Still No-Drama Obama," posted on the magazine's Web site, Walsh writes:

Face to face, President Obama seems even more unflappable, cerebral, and dispassionate than he appears on television.

And later:

I have interviewed each of the past five presidents— Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama—and Obama seems the most cerebral and the least emotional of them all.

"Cerebral" is one of the media's favorite adjectives to describe Obama these days.  In the current Newsweek, Anna Quindlen notes:

(Obama) is methodical, thoughtful, cerebral, a believer in consensus and process.

National Public Radio blogger Frank James describes Obama as "the urbane, super cool, cerebral president."

In a Los Angeles Times piece last month, columnist Michael Hiltzik asks, "why are the Democrats so reluctant to drop the hammer on the opposition and pass" ObamaCare?

Could the answer lie in Obama's cerebral personality? Obama seems to believe that if he explains his positions slowly and clearly enough, their fundamental logic will inevitably win the day without the need for arm-twisting.

Barry is very, very brainy.  That's the message.  There are different types of intelligence, of course, and Obama clearly is bright in certain ways.  He did, after all, parlay his community organizer background with a mediocre record as a state legislator and extremely limited experience as a senator into a White House win.

Still, we also know Obama has problems at least occasionally with elemental facts like how many states there are, what language is spoken in Afghanistan, and to whom Memorial Day is dedicated.  Then there was the time last year he claimed 10,000 people perished in Kansas tornadoes.  The actual number was 12.

Tut, tut, advised his media accomplices.  Trivial errors that anyone could have made.  Still, they can't explain why the genius must have several of his favorite teleprompters around him at all times.

Then there are his policies.  How smart does one have to be to think that a country can spend its way out of its economic woes?  That government makes better decisions for people than the people themselves do? That cozying up to ruthless dictators, dithering on important decisions, and constantly apologizing for one's own country are prudent policies?

The mainstream media have a vested interest in making Obama appear successful.  They did much of the heavy lifting necessary to get him into the White House.  As his failures become more apparent and he sinks in the polls, they now hope to persuade us that electing this "cerebral" man was the smart thing to do.

How dumb do they think the American people are?

ABC News's Web site includes the article "Is Obama 'Too Nice' to Make Tough Decisions?" by correspondent David Kerley.  The piece begins:

With problems for the president in Afghanistan, health care and unemployment, some critics on both the left and right are asking: Is the president essentially "too nice" to make the important decisions?

The National Journal magazine asks in a just-out edition, "Is He Tough Enough?"

"Be decisive," says Tom Tradewell, the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Even liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd says the president will have to "break some eggs" to cook up a more perfect union.

None of the people quoted assert the problem is Obama's affability.  Rather, the difficulty is the extreme caution he exercises, many times so as to not offend interest groups.  

We know Obama has little reluctance in employing the us-versus-them class struggle rhetoric against private enterprise.  He's accused surgeons of removing legs and tonsils for the money.  (The American College of Surgeons pointed out his statement that a surgeon receives $50,000 for a leg amputation was a little off; Medicare pays between $740 and $1,140).  Obama has no qualms sending his flunkies forth to attack Fox News.  On Saturday, he personally claimed that health insurers are “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads.”

Too nice?  Not hardly.  Indecisive? Definitely.  Dithering?  You bet.  Waffling?  Absolutely.  Unqualified?  The answer increasingly becomes apparent.  While Obama repeatedly says he wants to make things clear, rarely does he provide specifics.

As he stumbles and vacillates and falters, we've seen the mainstream media supply an arsenal of excuses for Obama's failings.  He inherited it all from Bush.  He set too ambitious an agenda.  Large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress aren't enough.  He's so terribly brilliant and nuanced that it takes the American public quite a while to catch up with him.

And now an excuse is he's just too nice.  That's as empty as Obama's promises, and will last about as long. 

On yesterday's The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger spoke with host Suzanne Malveaux about polling done on ObamaCare:

MALVEAUX: Gloria, I want to start off with you.

One thing that the polls were showing is that most Americans, they support this idea of this public option, but they also believe that the president wants the government to take over the health care system.
Well, how does that -- how do you make sense of that?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, in fact, 53 percent believe that Obama wants to take over the health care system, and 42 percent say no. And I think what this shows is that the Republican PR about President Obama being big government, big deficit, big spender, has really taken hold over the congressional recess. People believe that he wants big government.   

What Borger is missing here is that the principal reason Americans view Obama as a big government, big deficit, big spending liberal is because he is.  "Republican PR" might emphasize that simple truth, but the facts speak for themselves and many Americans would have arrived at the same conclusion regardless.

Last month, The Heritage Foundation's Brian M. Riedl reviewed some updated statistics from Obama's own administration:

The Office of Management and Budget has released its annual mid-session review that updates the budget projections from this past May. They show that this year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. The federal government will increase spending 22 percent this year to a peacetime-record 26 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush.

Admittedly, most citizens don't know those precise numbers.  At the same time, as they see Obama's heavy hand of government interference intruding more and more into our daily lives, as they see budget projections that even a year ago were unimaginable, as they come to a realization that there aren't enough "rich" people to fund more socialist schemes, they see Obama for what he is.

That doesn't require Republican PR.  Is they weren't so biased, even the mainstream media could figure it out. 

 Yesterday on The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger discussed President Obama's rapidly declining approval ratings.  A question was posed by host Suzanne Malveaux:

MALVEAUX: What does it mean, Gloria, for the president to be losing out on these Independents?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it's a real possible for him. Remember that President Obama won the election with 52 percent of Independent voters. That number is down considerably to 43 percent, and Independents are the margin of difference here for him.

Now, the key to keeping those people is, right now, they are worried about the deficit. They see the president as a big spender. They see him aligned with so-called liberal leaders in the Democratic Congress. So, what he's got to do when -- after Labor Day is kind of show them that he is the kind of so-called post-partisan president that many of them thought they were electing.

The good news for President Obama in this is that they are not realigning themselves with the Republicans yet, because the Republican Party still has very high disapproval ratings.

Now, Jessica, you've been watching something as well, which it looks like to be a generational gap in these numbers.

Borger's choice of words was revealing.  By using "so-called," she introduced an element of doubt as to whether Congressional Democratic leaders are, in fact, liberal.  Synonyms listed at thesaurus.com include pretended, dubious, and questionable.

I don't see there's any question as to if the Democratic leadership in Congress is liberal.  These are the folks who, spurred on by Obama, have given us unprecedented spending and deficits, expanded federal meddling in the private sector, and are now attempting to take over the one-sixth of the economy represented by health care.  It's no coincidence that last July's deficit was bigger than that for all of 2007.  Americans for Tax Reform calculated that this year's Cost of Government Day, the day on which the average American has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government at all levels, fell on August 12, a full 26 days later than just last year.

I can only shudder in imagining what damage would be wrought if Obama aligned himself with real liberal leaders in the Democratic Congress rather than Borger's "so-called" ones.   

AARP the Magazine boasts a circulation that's seven times greater than that of Time.  For the first half of this year, AARP the Magazine's circulation averaged more than 24 million copies.

AARP claims it's a "nonpartisan organization," an assertion increasingly challenged by senior citizens.  The magazine's September-October issue may give members more evidence for that conclusion.  It carries a cover story on rocker Bruce Springsteen, prominent in the presidential campaigns of both Barack Obama and John Kerry.  The piece is adulatory, noting that Springsteen at his upcoming concerts "will play several roles - hero, leader, preacher, rebel - the performances unfolding like a novel."

The magazine devotes several pages to observations from his friends.  One is liberal activist Bonnie Raitt:

It was an incredible boost when Bruce committed to joining the No Nukes concerts.  From the groundbreaking Amnesty International tour, to helping stop Contra aid in the '80s, to a steady stream of benefits, I don't know if any American artist has made as profound a difference.

Other Springsteen friends quoted are author Ron Kovic, Jersey Girl and "truth commission" advocate Kristen Breitweiser, and Senator John Kerry, who states of the singer: "In good times and bad, he had my back. . ."

In another article, "Jill Biden's 'Acts of Kindness,'" the vice president's wife is interviewed.  It starts:

Last spring President Barack Obama signed a $5.7 billion bill that, among other things, provides stipends and scholarships to citizens over 55 who contribute their skills and time to communities in need.

We're relieved to learn that Jill "Biden has emerged, along with First Lady Michelle Obama, as one of the more visible and enthusiastic foot soldiers for the White House in its campaign to encourage Americans to give back."

It's good the Biden's are giving something back.  In 2007 and with an adjusted gross income of more than $300,000, the Bidens gave a paltry $995 to charity.  

A third piece, "The New Patriotism," begins:

Presidents since Lincoln have urged us to follow our "better angels."  Now Barack Obama's call for national service is inspiring a new era of people helping people.
If the Stars and Stripes are the truest symbol of national pride, then patriotism seems to be flying high.  You can feel it as much as see it.  At coffee bars in Seattle, in midwestern farm communities, on college campuses, in New York City subways, Americans from all walks of life - old, young, white, black, Republican and Democratic - are fervently, happily, waving the flag, both literally and figuratively, and bursting with a renewed spirit that is helping redefine what it means to be a patriot.

After several more sentences of recounting the pure joy, "a welcome shift in mood," we're told it's "fueled in part by President Barack Obama's resonant and reiterated call to service. . . "

AARP the Magazine doesn't devote all its pages to promoting Obama, of course.  It also carries vital news, like informing its readers that "The Norman Lear Collection" is now available on DVD.

Two weeks ago, CBS News reported up to 60,000 people had canceled their AARP memberships since July 1; these were attributed to AARP's position on health care reform.  AARP the Magazine and its fawning coverage of Obama and other liberals aren't likely to draw these former members back.  

On CNN's American Morning today, business correspondent Christine Romans explained to anchor Kiran Chetry why there are new estimates showing the Federal deficit to be much worse than originally projected by the Obama administration:

ROMANS:  Why? OK, this is really -- it's a complicated problem with a very simple analysis. It's how much money the government is taking in and how much money is going out.

Let's look at how much is going out. Government spending has skyrocketed as you all know over the past couple of years, up 21 percent in the first ten months of this year. Unemployment benefits, health care, bailout programs. We are spending more money than we take in. We are spending gobs of money constantly on lots of different programs to try to get this economy out of the mess it's in. At the same time, revenue is plunging.

The money that's coming in to the Treasury Department is plunging down 17 months in the first ten months, or 17 percent, rather, in the first ten months, declining income and peril taxes. People are out of work. We're not making as much money.

CHETRY: Right.

ROMANS: That's going down. Non-wage income. All other kinds of income people have down sharply. And then that stimulus tax credit -- that has to come from somewhere. Right? Everyone is getting this big tax break, that means less money going in.

So this is the situation. Money is not coming in like it used to, and money is going out much, much, more quickly than it used to. And the bottom line is that's red ink, red ink, red ink, red ink for ten years.

Giving credit where it's due, Romans accurately noted that Obama's administration has routinely been "overly optimistic" in budget projections.  But what about "this big tax break" everyone is getting?

On February 22 of this year, USA Today carried the Associated Press article "Obama: Stimulus tax cuts will be felt by April 1."  According to the AP:

Most workers are to see about a $13 per week increase in their take-home pay. In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year.

Barack Obama and his Democratic Congress did not deliver a big tax break to everyone.  However, Romans's observation that he is "spending gobs of money. . . to try to get this economy out of the mess it's in" is correct.  It's Obama's profligate expenditures that are undeniably the principal cause of huge deficits, not illusory big tax breaks.    

"It's like déjà vu all over again," noted philosopher Yogi Berra is credited with saying. And so it is.

A liberal Democratic president has his heart set on pushing through a proposal strongly unpopular with most Americans. Enjoying substantial Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate, he intends to win.

So it was in September, 1977 when Jimmy Carter signed the Panama Canal treaties to relinquish United States control. An Associated Press opinion poll conducted that month found that only 29 percent of Americans favored the pact. A solid 50 percent opposed it and 21 percent expressed no opinion.

Just as Barack Obama is determined to shove a government health care program down the throats of his protesting countrymen, Carter did what was necessary to get the Senate to ratify the Panama Canal treaties. He cajoled, he promised, he threatened. It worked.

Carter was understandably jubilant when in early 1978 he received one vote more than the 67 necessary to approve the first of the two treaties. He hailed it as "a victory for the American people." That may sound vaguely familiar. It's how Barack Obama described his own 2008 election.

In a 1991 interview, Jimmy Carter talked about his triumph:

"I never go through a week of my life now that I don't get letters from people condemning the Panama Canal Treaties. Still, and this is I don't know how many years later. 1978? Thirteen years later. But it was a good thing to do."

He went on to describe the aftermath:

"It is the most courageous thing that the U.S. Senate ever did in its existence. They knew that it was politically unpopular, but they knew that it was right and needed. Of the 20 senators who voted for the Canal Treaties in 1978, who were up for re-election the next year, only seven of them came back. Thirteen of them didn't come back. And the attrition rate in 1980 was almost as bad."

The Boston Globe reported in February, 1981 that "the new Senate that took office this year sees the absence, by retirement or defeat, of 28 senators who supported the treaties." In only three years, 28 of the 68 senators who did what Carter deemed "right and needed" and what the public opposed were gone.

As was Carter. He was such a dismal failure in so many ways, it's impossible to attribute his defeat to any one action or event. Jimmy had pummeled President Jerry Ford over the "misery index," a combination of the inflation and unemployment rates. Four years of Carter resulted in the index shooting up from 13% to more than 20%. By itself, inflation stood at 13.58% in Carter's last year in office.

Yet another factor had to have been Carter's successful effort to turn the Panama Canal over to a leftist dictator carrying the title of "Maximum Leader of the Panamanian Revolution." Americans didn't want that to happen, but a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress didn't care.

Which brings us to now. Another Democratic president and another Democratic Congress don't care that Americans oppose a government health care system disguised as reform.

With their elitist mentality, they genuinely believe they know better than we do what's best for us. If it takes hiding from constituents, fine. If it takes lying about what their plans entail, OK. If it takes cajoling, promising, threatening, it's just part of doing what they've decided is right and needed.

If the president succeeds in imposing ObamaCare, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. All those Americans held in such contempt by the liberal establishment will be at the polls next year and in 2012. They'll remember how they were disrespected and ignored. And Obama & Co. will have no one to blame but themselves for ignoring a lesson of the Carter years.

On Saturday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Don Lemon played a clip of his interview with Allen Hardage, identified as the director of America's Town Hall:

LEMON: Where was the outrage five years ago, ten years ago, 15 years ago? Why all of a sudden this outrage now? At least the president is trying to reform health care, so where did the outrage suddenly come from?

ALLEN HARDAGE, DIRECTOR, AMERICA'S TOWN HALL: Don, this is the second town hall he's done in the last week that I actually saw real Americans get up and ask questions. It wasn't a pre-selected group or a --

LEMON: But hang on, before you do that. Real Americans, that's another term that really sets people off.

HARDAGE: Well, let me tell you what I mean by that.

LEMON: We're all real Americans. Everybody.

HARDAGE: Where anybody can get in and anybody can ask a question. And you have seen a completely different tenor in -- in the town hall he held on Tuesday and today, than town halls we have been seeing so far in this debate. That's what I mean by real Americans.

LEMON: OK. Or maybe you know what, the whole real American thing -- can we lose that real Americans?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure.

LEMON: Because everybody in this country, who is a citizen...

(CROSSTALK)

HARDAGE: Absolutely.

LEMON: ...we're all real Americans.

HARDAGE: Absolutely.

LEMON: And that is part of the issue that really sets people off and divides people. So let's get rid of that real Americans. We're all -- I'm real American. You're real American.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure.

LEMON: Conservatives, liberals, independents, we're all poor or rich real Americans.

HARDAGE: Absolutely.

LEMON: Continue your point.

HARDAGE: But here's my point. If we're going to open this debate up and have everybody come in and put their ideas forth. Virginia is absolutely right. He said it himself, this is a hard issue. So we need to -- we need to bring everybody to the table. Let's hear everybody's ideas and concerns, and come up with a consensus.

Lemon's defense of Barack Obama (at least the president is trying to reform health care) came as he asked why there's a "sudden" outrage.  The outrage has been building for months, as Obama set records for unprecedented spending and deficits, expanded federal meddling in banks and auto companies, fired executives and guaranteed the government would back up auto warranties.  The disastrous cap and tax legislation he's pushing through Congress will have a devastating impact on energy prices, destroy jobs, and give government even greater power. 

Now the man with zero credible executive experience wants to expand his authority over an additional one-sixth of the economy.

This wasn't the only time Lemon set aside any pretense of objectivity to laud Obama.  On November 1, 2006, he interviewed Michelle Obama at a birthday celebration for Jesse Jackson.  Santita Jackson, Jesse's daughter, became part of the segment:

LEMON: Are you ready to be first lady?

OBAMA: No comment.

LEMON: Where's hubby tonight?

OBAMA: He's coming. He is flying in. His flight doesn't come in until late. My date is Santita Jackson.

LEMON: Santita, get over here.

OBAMA: Get over here.

LEMON: Santita Jackson and Michelle Obama. Let me get you guys right here. Daughter of the great one who's turning 65. Wife of the great one now.

The great one now. Obviously, that journalistic detachment doesn't extend to people who use inflammatory language such as "real Americans," disparaged by the anchor Saturday as "another term that really sets people off."  Well, at least some people in the mainstream media.  It appeared as though Hardage was merely suggesting town hall participants are average citizens, rather than, as he said, "a pre-selected group." That wasn't good enough for Lemon, who bullied the guest into an admission that every citizen is a real American.

Several mainstream media types have gone to work for the administration.  Perhaps as Lemon reminds viewers that at least Obama is trying to reform health care, a White House opening for another dependable news reader will develop.

In today's article titled "White House appears ready to drop 'public option,'" the Associated Press reports the Obama administration is signaling it's prepared to drop the option of government-run insurance as a component of ObamaCare.  The piece states in part:

Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Not a deal breaker?  It certainly seemed to be one as recently as last month.  On July 20, The Washington Post's Web site included Ezra Klein's report, "Obama Says Health-Care Reform 'Must' Include Public Option."  Cited is Obama's radio address of that week, in which the president declared:

(A)ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

Any plan must include a public option.  The language is unambiguous.  Except in ObamaWorld apparently.  Now we're told it was never really a deal breaker.

Conservatives have been frustrated by mainstream media efforts to at times rewrite history to Barack Obama's benefit.  Here they go again.