If, as Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed, taxes are what we pay for a civilized society, we have become very civilized indeed.

A difficulty is that our tax laws are so complicated, so convoluted, so loaded with preferences and exceptions, that it’s next to impossible to understand them, let alone apply them fairly.

President Barack Obama must be acutely aware of this problem by now. Tom Daschle, his first nominee to run Health and Human Services, withdrew after disclosure he hadn't paid $146,000 in back taxes. The same day, chief performance officer designee Nancy Killefer withdrew her name from consideration because of tax issues.

In his role as Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner runs the Internal Revenue Service.  This is ironic as it was disclosed during his confirmation hearings that Geithner himself failed to pay almost $40,000 in taxes since 2001. Moreover, he took a dependent-care credit on his returns even after an accountant advised Geithner he didn’t qualify. Obama asserted Geithner’s errors were “an honest mistake.”

During the confirmation process for Health and Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius paid the IRS more than $7,800 for “unintentional errors” of previous tax returns. Obama’s nominee for U.S. trade representative, Ron Kirk, was sworn in last month after paying $9,975 for amended tax returns. Labor secretary designee Hilda Soltis’s husband settled over $6,000 in tax liens in February.

If people who qualify for appointment at the highest levels of government can’t accurately complete their taxes even with extensive professional assistance, what chance does an average Joe or Jane have of navigating a tax code that’s out of control?

In 1913, the Form 1040 was four pages long. And that included instructions. This year’s Form 1040 with instructions and selected schedules checks in at 161 pages.

In January, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson made her annual report to Congress. She noted that one estimate of the number of words in the current tax code is 3.7 million and that there were more than 500 code changes in just 2008. About six in ten taxpayers hire a preparer to complete their return.

Calling the IRS for help is often an exercise in futility. One analysis

found staff gave correct answers to only 57 percent of the questions asked by investigators pretending to be taxpayers.

So flawed is the tax system that practically anything, including a consumption tax or a flat tax, would be preferable. Ending withholding would be beneficial. It conceals the real cost of government by taking the money before the taxpayer ever sees it. Paying in an annual lump sum would drive home what the genuine cost of government is.

Another recommended change would involve moving tax day from April 15^th to October 31^st. This would make Halloween even scarier. It also would place it only days before voters have a say on the miscreants who’ve so grotesquely expanded the scope and expense of government.

We need to change our tax system and make it simple and equitable. So simple and equitable that even Barack Obama’s appointees would have no excuse for not paying their fair share. 

Today on CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez attacked Senator James Inhofe's (R-OK) assertion that Barack Obama is disarming America.  Joining Sanchez was Jim Arkedis of the Progressive Policy Institute.  Sanchez wanted viewers to believe the PPI is a nonpartisan think tank.  He ran a video of Inhofe denouncing Obama's proposals followed with:

SANCHEZ: Cutting and gutting the military budget.

Joining us now is Jim Arkedis.

He's the director of the National Security Project of the Progressive Policy Institute.

You guys check on these things...

JIM ARKEDIS, PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE: We do.

SANCHEZ: ...to make sure the figures are right. So because you're down now in the middle, I'm going to ask you the question -- is Senator James Inhofe correct to say that President Obama is "gutting the U.S. military budget?"

In fact, he goes on to say disarming America.

ARKEDIS: Obviously, the senator's words are pretty ridiculous. President Obama has proposed an increase, as the numbers you just rattled off suggested. And there's absolutely no hint any time in the future that America's military budget is going to be gutted or we're going to be incapable of fighting the wars that -- that we are in now and we will look to in the future -- or have to in the future.

SANCHEZ: And just to be clear, you're -- you're not a lefty, right?

You're not coming at this from oh, I'm a defender of Barack Obama or the Democrats' proposals here, right?

ARKEDIS: Well...

SANCHEZ: Your organization is?

ARKEDIS: We are the Progressive Policy Institute. So I'll let the -- the title speak for itself. But we are a centrist progressive organization.

The Progressive Policy Institute is clearly partisan and makes no effort to hide it.  The organization's Web site notes:

Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," PPI's policy analysis and proposals were the source for many of the "New Democrat" innovations that figured prominently in national politics over the past two decades. The Institute also has been integral to the spread of "Third Way" thinking to center-left parties in Europe and elsewhere.

It also discloses:

PPI's mission is to define and promote a new progressive politics for America in the 21st century.

For those not paying any more attention to political discussion than Rick Sanchez, "progressive" is the term preferred by liberals who for obvious reasons don't wish to be identified as liberals.

PPI states it is "a project of the Third Way Foundation Inc."  The foundation's chairman is Al From, founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council.

To his credit, Arkedis didn't deny defending Democratic proposals.  When asked about that, he began with "Well..." Sanchez cut in, not wishing to cloud his own claim that PPI is "in the middle."

It's down the middle about as much as you usually are, Rick.  In the middle of left field.

Watching Barack Obama this past week was painful.  The new president went out of his way to display his fresh style of leadership.  It won rave reviews from many foreigners, the mainstream media and others who hold the United States in contempt.

A key component to Obama’s approach is apologetically groveling.  The United Kingdom’s Telegraph reported:
President Barack Obama has offered an apology for the Bush era, declaring that America had ‘shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive’ towards its allies.  President Obama said the US had ‘failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.’

His speech in Strasbourg went further than any United States president in history in criticising his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.

Now a man who brought along an entourage of 500 people and 12 teleprompters, a guy who gave his acceptance speech in the midst of a temple façade, knows more than a little about arrogance.  So he goes overseas and knocks his own country.

Even The Washington Post took note of how penitential Obama sounded:

Obama’s deferential approach was manifest in his public statements, which described shrinking U.S. influence as a positive development.  At times the president sounded almost apologetic about past American primacy.

Expressing regrets about America is something that apparently comes easily to Obama.  Certainly he’s had enough experience in apologizing for his own fumbles.

He said he was sorry for comparing his bowling prowess to the Special Olympics.  He had to call Nancy Reagan and apologize for saying she held séances in the White House.  Last May, he told a local TV reporter he was sorry for calling her “sweetie.”

The following month two Muslim women wearing headscarves weren’t allowed to sit behind candidate Obama at a campaign rally.  Of course, he called them to express regret for the incident.

In 2007, he claimed we “have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.” That elicited Obama contrition.  The candidate had to apologize to his Democratic primary opponent for a staff memo referring to “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab).”

Obama’s penchant for apologizing is a Democratic presidential tradition.  He’s well on his way to matching Apologizin’ Bill Clinton.

You’ll remember that Bill apologized for slavery in Africa: “European-Americans received the fruits of the slave trade and we were wrong in that.” In Rwanda, he apologized for not doing anything earlier in his administration when massacres killed more than 700,000 Hutus and Tutsis.

In Guatemala, he said said he was sorry about America’s support of military and intelligence units in our fight against Communism in the region.  At home he apologized to black World War II veterans who didn’t receive the decorations to which they were entitled.  He apologized to the survivors of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.

The president who gave phone sex a bad name had these words for his contributors when the scandal could no longer be hidden:

“I’ve done my best to be your friend, but I also let you down and I let my family down and I let this country down.” Clinton even managed to apologize for an apology.  After admitting in a speech that he’d “raised your taxes too much,” he caught heat from Congressional Democrats and decided hiking taxes had been the right thing to do:

"So, if I said anything which can be read in any other way, then I should not have said that.  And I certainly did not mean to do that, and I accept responsibility for it, because I am very, very proud of what I did."

No doubt, Clinton was proud of raising taxes.  But in terms of spending other people’s money, he’s a miser next to the current president.  And we’ll not hear any apologies for that from Obama.

He prefers to do his sniveling overseas.

CNN’s Roland Martin is hosting Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull for the next eight weeks.  On Monday’s program, Martin clearly demonstrated he’s going to have trouble living up to the program’s title.

The subject was the Notre Dame-Barack Obama controversy.  Martin argued with the Catholic League’s William Donohue that inviting the adamantly pro-abortion Obama to the school and awarding him an honorary degree is no different from Notre Dame’s 2001 treatment of former President George W. Bush, who supports capital punishment:

And one of the critical issues when it came to Bush speaking in 2001, death penalty. I have heard Pope Benedict, as well as Pope John Paul II talk about the death penalty, and they rank it just right up there with abortion.

Minutes later, Martin said:

Well, again, though, I like how you talk about the abortion piece. But, again, Catholics are just as vigilant when it comes to the death penalty.

And so all I'm saying is, if it's good for one, it should be good for the other.

Are abortion and capital punishment morally equivalent in the eyes of the Catholic Church?  Paragraph 2267 of the Church’s Catechism begins:

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

Paragraph 2271 discusses abortion and says in pertinent part:

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. . .

Martin claims he’s “heard Pope Benedict, as well as Pope John Paul II talk about the death penalty, and they rank it just right up there with abortion.”

Not according to Pope Benedict XVI.  As Cardinal Ratzinger, he wrote:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment. . ., he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities. . . to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible. . .  to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about. . . applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

In defending Notre Dame’s invitation and awarding of an honorary degree to Obama, Roland Martin distorted the Church’s teachings.
Martin started his program by saying:

But, look, I'm not going to bother with the silly notion of who's a liberal or a conservative on this show. I voted for Obama and also for George H.W. Bush, Republicans and Democrats. On some issues, I might be called a liberal, on others, a conservative.

I judge people based on the issues and refuse to be pigeonholed and wedded to the ridiculous notion of ideology. Our goal on this show is very simple. That is to speak the truth to the power, no matter the party or the person.

Wow, he voted for the first President Bush.  But that was over 20 years ago.  If Roland is, as he claims, conservative on some issues, he’s gone out of his way not to show it.

My experience is that people who eschew what they disdainfully call political labels are almost always liberals.  Conservatives don’t have a problem admitting their perspective.  For them, ideology is hardly “a ridiculous notion.”

Roland Martin’s hosting of the program may well require amending the show’s title.   How does All Bias, All Bull sound?   

Barack Obama promised to elevate the level of political discourse.  Some of his apparent admirers didn't get the memo.

Take, for example, this user comment on the Washington Post's 44: The Obama Presidency blog yesterday:

Considering how many people donated small amounts to his campaign, I imagine it would be difficult to find people who couldn't be considered "backers" in some way. I mean one of these guys donated a whopping $250. Yay Matt Drudge! Yay Rush Limbaugh! Way to be more retarded than Palin's down syndrome baby.

The poster was responding to the blog item "Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Backers."  That piece documented that at Obama's town hall meeting, his staff stacked the deck with the president's partisans.

Introducing Gov. Sarah Palin's special-needs child into the discussion shows how low Obamatons can go in defending their hero.  I don't know if the Washington Post's blogs are moderated.  I do know, however, that the newspaper maintains User Discussion and Submission Guidelines.  The very first section states in part:

You agree not to submit inappropriate content. Inappropriate content includes any content that: . . .degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability, or other classification

Here's a screen shot of the comment.  On the Internet, things sometimes have a way of getting scrubbed.

 

If the Washington Post doesn't moderate its blogs, it might want to give serious consideration to doing so.  In this Golden Age of Obama, his backers obviously feel free to coarsely express their opinions no matter how despicable.

Today's Chicago Sun-Times features the column "Obama speech tests Notre Dame's strength" by Carol Marin.  She begins:

It takes courage to be a Catholic educator. In America's culture wars, abortion is the trump card of every moral discussion. Or so the righteous right requires us to believe.

At Notre Dame, the most Catholic of Catholic universities, a national protest is building over the decision by the school's president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, to invite President Obama to give the commencement address on May 17.

Marin then goes on to write that Obama's done much more than advancing abortion and embryonic stem cell research.  For example, he's "trying to stop the economy from going over a cliff."  She approvingly quotes a former Catholic university administrator saying the role of those institutions is to "espouse academic freedom where people are allowed to research, teach and hear many voices on campus . . ."  And what would an article mentioning the Catholic Church be without at least one reference to pedophilia?  Marin doesn't disappoint in that regard.

You'd think Marin, who prides herself on journalistic professionalism, would at least have started the column with the facts.  Obama was not merely invited to give a commencement address.  Notre Dame's own Web site acknowledges he will also be "the recipient of an honorary doctor of laws degree."

This clearly conflicts with the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which provides:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

One speculates as to how far Marin's support for many voices being heard on college campuses goes.  Does she think David Duke would be an appropriate speaker at Howard University?  How about a Holocaust denier at American Jewish University?

Carol knows from personal experience that the free speech notion only extends so far.  A dozen years ago, Marin quit a Chicago TV news anchor job because the station hired Jerry Springer to do commentaries.  The May 1, 1997 Chicago Sun-Times published an article by Marin on the subject.  She wrote:

This fight is not about Springer. It is about respecting the intelligence of the public we serve. It is about protecting the journalistic values to which many of us still subscribe.

Yet she doesn't admit that the Notre Dame-Obama controversy is about protecting the moral values to which many Catholics think a Catholic university should subscribe.  No, it's all about "the righteous right."  You know, the people who "require" everyone to believe certain things.

Jerry Springer makes as much sense as Carol. 

Reuters issued a dispatch this afternoon centering on a global effort to underscore the threat of global warming.  "World switches off to save planet in 'Earth Hour'" reports the news service.  The piece notes:

Lights went out at tourism landmarks and homes across the globe on Saturday for Earth Hour 2009, a global event designed to highlight the threat from climate change.

From the Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge to the Eiffel Tower in Paris and London's Houses of Parliament, lights were dimmed as part of a campaign to encourage people to cut energy use and curb greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

Organizers said the action showed millions of people wanted governments to work out a strong new U.N. deal to fight global warming by the end of 2009, even though the global economic crisis has raised worries about the costs.

Four paragraphs later appears "BILLION PEOPLE TAKE PART."  That isn't supported by what follows, which reports that the founding organization "is hoping one billion people from nearly 90 countries will take part."

So how does Reuters report that a billion people took part?  According to the International Energy Agency, "Some 1.6 billion people, about one quarter of the world’s population, have no access to electricity today." The CIA estimates the world's population at 6.7 billion, so that would mean about 5 billion people in the world could shut off their lights in the global feel-good exercise.  For Reuters to be correct in its one billion people claim, one out of five people would have had to participate.  Since Earth Hour hadn't even arrived for much of the world at the time Reuters released its report, how can the agency already state as fact that there were a billion participants?  

The obvious answer is it couldn't.  Reuters made up a nice, round number to buttress its contention of massive worldwide support for Earth Hour.  And no doubt it'll be picked up by mainstream media outlets across the country.       

The Washington Post's 44 blog today carries the item "Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Backers."  Authored by Garance Franke-Ruta, the article notes:

But while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008.

After that come details of the connections between the questioners and His Messiahship.  

The Post being the Post, of course, the item had to begin with a slap at the previous president (Obama "is taking a page from the Bush playbook"), but it's still refreshing to see part of the mainstream media acknowledge some of Obama's shadier tactics.

The question, then, is whether many other news outlets will pick up on the story.  I'm not holding my breath.

When a former Alabama judge is indicted on 57 felony counts, including sodomy, kidnapping and paddling jail inmates, that's news.  If the judge is a Democrat once under consideration for the Federal bench by Bill Clinton, that part isn't news.

MSNBC's Web site reports "Former Judge Herman Thomas Indicted on Sex, Ethics Charges."  The piece begins:

Former Mobile County Circuit Judge Herman Thomas has bonded out of the Mobile County Metro Jail after he was arrested Friday afternoon. Before his arrest, Thomas was indicted by a grand jury on 57 felony counts, accusing him of, among other things, sexually abusing Mobile County inmates in exchange for favors in his courtroom. Thomas is charged with ethics violations, kidnapping, extortion, sexual abuse and sodomy. The indictment against him includes graphic details of alleged paddling and other sexual favors. Eight victims are named in the indictment. All of the alleged victims are men.

Other news outlets covering the story included the Montgomery Advertiser, the Press-Register, SunHerald.com, and WKRG TV 5 in Mobile.

None identified the judge as a Democrat.  The January 4, 2000 Mobile Register did.  In a story titled "Too late? Clinton may not get to fill judgeship," the newspaper reported in a subtitle:

Senate may not allow Clinton pick: Herman Thomas  has been a leading candidate for federal berth, but his chances may be dimmed by a GOP freeze

From the article:

It is "probably too late" for a Clinton nominee to clear the Senate before his term ends early next year, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, said in an interview last week. Sessions is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which screens the judicial nominees.

The delay could be bad news for Circuit Judge Herman Thomas of Mobile, a Democrat who emerged as the leading candidate for the position in 1997 after a state patronage committee recommended him for the opening.

Thomas' chances seemed to fade in 1997 amid reports that the American Bar Association had questioned his fitness for the job.

But interest in Thomas appeared to surge again last summer, when federal investigators and bar association officials resumed the interviewing of his legal, political and social associates.

Herman Thomas: Yet another Democrat whose party affiliation isn't worth mentioning.  At least not by the mainstream media. 

Today's Chicago Tribune, taking a cue from its hero Barack Obama, gave bracketeering a try.  The contenders, all former Illinois and Louisiana public officials, were selected for a smackdown to determine the most disgraceful.

The rivals from Louisiana were former Governors Huey Long and Edwin Edwards, former Congressman William "Refrigerator" Jefferson, and former New Orleans City Council president Oliver Thomas (identified as Thomas Oliver by the newspaper.).  Weighing in from Illinois were former Governors George Ryan and Milorad "Call Me Rod" Blagojevich, former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, and former Chicago alderman Arenda Troutman.

The Trib gave the nod to Edwin Edwards, although I think the competition was marred by not having an Illinois Daley in the competition.  Setting that aside, what was interesting is the Tribune didn't mention party affiliation in its bracketeering.  Seven of the eight contenders, or 87.5 percent, were Democrats.  Gee, what a surprise.

Yet the Tribune didn't see fit to note that relevant fact.  Just another day at what used to bill itself as the "World's Greatest Newspaper."   

On today's American Morning, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta covered the weekend canvass sponsored by the Democratic Party's Organizing for America.  Volunteers collected signatures of support for Barack Obama and his agenda.  Acosta's voice over, interspersed with statements from others, began:

Don't tell them the race is over. Once volunteers for the Obama campaign...a vast grassroots network of supporters is back on the trail.  Reactivated. This time, to sell the president's agenda.  Michael Lafemina was one of hundreds of volunteers who went door-to-door from New York...to California on behalf of something called Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic Party run by remnants of the Obama campaign.

So in a matter of seconds, Acosta's supposed vast grassroots network was reduced to only hundreds of people.  Initial reports in other media suggest the response to Obama's personal call to arms was less than overwhelming.

According to the Christian Science Monitor:

The group (Organizing for America) claims that there were more than 1,200 canvassing groups out nationwide this weekend. But many places saw fewer volunteers than expected.

The Washington Post reported on North Carolina activity:

Randall Stagner staged an event Saturday in his home in Raleigh, N.C. For the former campaign volunteer, it started with a call from Organizing for America. He tapped into the 2008 Obama Web site and sent an e-mail in hopes of rustling up some interest.

He received 300 replies.

"I was overwhelmed. There was a lot of pent-up desire to go and do things," said Stagner, 49, a retired Army special operations colonel. He identified 10 people across the state willing to organize a canvass. In all, he expects 30 events.

All that pent-up desire translated to fewer than a dozen folks willing to organize?

The Salt Lake Tribune noted that canvassers there included a 14- and 15-year old girl:

After 90 minutes, Flanigan and Nelson had collected only 15 signatures. Most people did not answer their doors.

"They could very well have phobias about people with clip boards," Nelson quipped.

Or maybe they didn't have the inclination to explain to high school kids why they're not tripping over themselves supporting The One.

A piece in The Nation described efforts in Ft. Green, Brooklyn.  Author Ari Berman writes:

There are few places in the country where Obama's support is stronger than in Ft. Greene--a vibrant, multi-ethnic, racially and socio-economically mixed neighborhood with tree-lined streets, old brownstones and a spacious park in the middle. On a sunny afternoon, about two dozen OFA volunteers gathered on the edge of the park, across from a farmer's market selling Apple Cider and fresh pies.

Working together, three of the volunteers managed to garner 26 signatures in an hour.  This, in true blue Obama Country.

Rather than collecting signatures, Obamatons should have gone door-to-door apologizing for their complicity in putting Barry in the White House, an assignment so obviously and painfully above his pay grade.

All of this isn't to deny that Obama does have a vast network cheering him on.  He does.  It's called CNN.

After earlier this week defining what a moderate Democrat is, on Saturday CNN tried its hand at defining what a moderate Republican is.  CNN Newsroom featured a segment on governors who are refusing stimulus funds because of the inevitable Federal strings.  Anchor Fredricka Whitfield had this exchange with CNN deputy political director Paul Steinhauser:

WHITFIELD: Well, that's interesting, because perhaps one other Republican whose name has been tossed into the whole could he run for president, but he can't, he did accept money for his state, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

STEINHAUSER: Exactly. That is very -- a very different case there, too, because Arnold Schwarzenegger is very much of a moderate Republican. He's kind of on the different end of the spectrum from Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford and Bobby Jindal.

OK, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a moderate Republican.  That may come as a surprise since he's widely been deemed a liberal by a variety of sources.  In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle's Washington bureau chief titled a column "Schwarzenegger's liberal views leave GOP flummoxed: Actor is pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-gay rights."  At about the same time, National Review editors determined "Schwarzenegger, it seems clear, does not merit conservative support."

The following year, columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote: "No matter what Schwarzenegger's boosters may claim, at the end of the day Schwarzenegger is a liberal Republican."  Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, who knows a thing or two about matters leftist, has written the "fact is that Schwarzenegger is for all intent purposes a Democrat to the consternation of Republicans and quiet glee of Democrats in the great Golden State."

The Sacramento Bee reported in 2007 that the UK's Daily Telegraph compiled a list of America's 100 most influential liberals and conservatives.  Schwarzenegger made the list - as a liberal.

Then we have today's Arnold, the one who commends Barack Obama "for the courageous leadership and the great commitment that he has displayed over these last few months." The one who calls Obama a "fantastic partner."  The one who counsels fellow Republicans: "You know, you've got to go beyond just the principles."

So that's what a moderate Republican looks like.  If CNN hadn't told us, we might still think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a liberal.  Oh, that's right.  At CNN there's no such thing.   

Today's Parade Magazine names "The World's 10 Worst Dictators."  Topping the list is Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe:

Inflation in Zimbabwe is so bad that in January the government released a $50 billion note — enough to buy two loaves of bread. The unemployment rate has risen to more than 85%. In 2008, Mugabe agreed to hold an election, but it became clear that he would accept the result only if he won. His supporters launched attacks on the opposition, killing 163 and torturing or beating 5000. He ultimately signed a power-sharing agreement with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, but since then Mugabe has broken its terms and installed his own people at the head of every ministry. Meanwhile, health conditions have reached crisis levels. More than 3800 Zimbabweans have died from cholera since August.

U.S. link: Although U.S. leaders have called for Mugabe’s resignation, imports from Zimbabwe (primarily nickel and ferrochromium, both used in stainless steel) rose in 2008.

There's actually much more of a U.S. link than that.  Unmentioned is the role played by former president Jimmy Carter and other liberals.  The Boston Globe reported in December, 1979 that "Carter Administration officials feel they have scored a major foreign policy success in Rhodesia."  (Zimbabwe was formerly known as Rhodesia). The purported success was a settlement that set the stage for Mugabe's rise to power.  This was months after the Washington Post described him as a "scholarly, avowed Marxist."

In August, 1980, Carter's former UN ambassador Andrew Young wrote in the Washington Post of "Mugabe's Endorsement:"

The president's best investment of the past four years has just begun to pay off.  The visit of Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Robert Mugabe sparked an enthusiasm in black America that may well rekindle the fires that Jimmy Carter so desperately needs for reelection.

Here is a president, being questioned by the liberal wing of his own party for supposedly abandoning his commitment to human rights at home and abroad, suddenly receiving accolades from Robert Mugabe -- Africa's "black diamond" -- for making a truly non-racial democracy possible in southern Africa.

Young went on to relate how enthusiastically the "black diamond" was received in Harlem, at Howard University, and by New York's Foreign Policy Association.  He continued:

Zimbabwe may have given the American people the vote of confidence needed to get out of the present paralyzing cynicism and to begin building at home and abroad the dream of free men and women, of a world of peace and prosperity.

Support for Mugabe was echoed by the mainstream media.  The New York Times claimed that ""Mr. Mugabe has quickly established himself as an African statesman of the first rank."  An April, 1981 piece in the Washington Post noted:

Many whites admit that before last year's election they expected to flee in the event of a Mugabe victory.  Most were stunned by his landslide win after listening to years of propaganda proclaiming he was "a godless Marxist." Now, many are pleasantly surprised at how well things have gone in the first year of rule by the country's black majority of 7 million.

Weeks later the Boston Globe editorialized:

There is a temptation to be over optimistic about the future of Zimbabwe, the year-old black-ruled nation that was once Rhodesia, because so much of the future of southern Africa pivots on its success. Two recent events made some optimism seem justified.

Mugabe's Marxist, dictatorial tendencies were apparent from the beginning.  Jimmy Carter, who visited the White House just last week, and other liberals chose to ignore them then.  Parade would have performed its readers a service by briefly recapping the details of how Mugabe was given the chance to assume the title of world's worst dictator.    

This week CNN's Political Ticker reported "Congresswoman takes post in State Department."  The article begins:

California congresswoman Ellen Tauscher is vacating her Bay Area seat to serve under Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

Tauscher, a moderate Democrat and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a message to her constituents that Clinton had asked her to serve as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Let's briefly examine the congressional voting record of the "moderate Democrat" Ellen Tauscher.  According to interest group evaluations compiled by Project Vote Smart, for 2007 the congresswoman received a zero from the American Conservative Union and the National Right to Life Committee, an F from the National Taxpayers Union, an F- from Gun Owners of America, and a 4 from Citizens Against Government Waste.  

In contrast, she was awarded 100 percent ratings by NARAL Pro-Choice America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, and the National Organization for Women.  Americans for Democratic Action assigned her a 95 and the AFL-CIO accorded her a 96.

CNN considers such a voting record to be one of a moderate Democrat.  Apparently, over at the most trusted name in news, liberals are as rare as a Barack Obama misstep.  

"PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama rhetoric, reality clash" is today's offering from Liz Sidoti, the Associated Press White House correspondent.  The piece begins with a harsh assessment:

Barack Obama's optimistic campaign rhetoric has crashed headlong into the stark reality of governing.

 

In office two months, he has backpedaled on an array of issues, gingerly shifting positions as circumstances dictate while ducking for political cover to avoid undercutting his credibility and authority. That's happened on the Iraq troop withdrawal timeline, on lobbyists in his administration and on money for lawmakers' pet projects.

 

But just wait.  Although it's true that Obama is breaking promises faster than he made them, we can't hold that against him.  Sidoti explains:

It's the same delicate dance each of his predecessors faced in moving from candidate to president, only to find he couldn't stick exactly by his word. Each was hamstrung by his responsibility to the entire nation and to individual constituencies, changes in the foreign and domestic landscapes, and the trappings of the federal government and Washington itself.

Once in the White House, presidents quickly learn they are only one part of the political system, not in charge of it. They discover the trade-offs they must make and the parties they must please to get things done. Inevitably, they find out that it's impossible to follow through completely on their campaign proposals.

 

Take, for example, the fact Obama signed Porkulus, a massive spending measure that included more than 8,000 earmarks.  According to Sidoti:

He had little choice. The measure, a holdover from last year, was needed to keep government from shutting down. But to blunt the fallout, Obama outlined guidelines to ensure tighter restraints on the spending and made a new promise: Future earmarks won't become law so easily.

 

See how that works?  Obama broke his promise on earmarks, but made up for it by making a new promise.  It's a tough job, but one the messiah has selflessly accepted.

No doubt most presidents have had difficulty keeping their campaign promises.  Then again, unlike Obama, most presidents have not enjoyed solid majorities in Congress, a never-ending campaign orchestrated by presidential loyalists, and a fawning mainstream media constantly cheering them on.

The One has all of that going for him.  It's still not enough and the mainstream media are already getting their excuses for him in order.