President Obama’s lost year

The year is quickly slipping away, and for President Obama, it is beginning to seem like a lost year. His administration is besieged by controversies, and the severity of them is likely determined by which political party a person belongs to.

There is a lot of smoke surrounding these scandals, but there is also some fire. The Benghazi situation grew out of the deaths of four Americans in Libya last September that was the result of a terrorist attack.

Since then, the administration’s handling of the event has remained controversial. Though presidential supporters believe this is old news being rehashed by Republicans for political gain, the president really has nobody to blame but himself for its lingering.

The president claims he has referred to this event as a terrorist attack since the beginning. However, less than a week after the attack, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice did multiple media appearances blaming the attack on an anti-Islamic video that caused inflamed passions in that area and not a terrorist attack. This contradiction has led to much confusion that has not been cleared up yet.

Rice, who at one time was considered a possible successor to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appears to have fallen off the edge of the earth. She has kept a very low profile, and what media appearances she has made has been with friendly members of the fourth estate.

If the president did believe this was a terrorist attack from the beginning, all he had to do is take a straightforward approach with the American people. He apparently did not do that and the story continues to drag out months later.

All he had to do is say the deaths were a terrible tragedy and clearly state it was an act of terrorism. He could have pledged to do all that was possible to track down those who were responsible. He also could have emphasized that he will look at what went wrong in his administration to guarantee this will never happen again.

However, he did not really do that. He did say some of those things, but it was not with the emphasis and action needed to end the story. If he had, there would have been some political fallout, but it would not have been enough to sway last year’s election. He failed to trust the common sense of the American people, and it has come back to bite him.

Of course, there are other controversies, too. The IRS scandal probably resonates with the public more than any of these scandals. This is because we can all relate to it. We all understand the immense power the IRS has, and if it is misused, it can do damage. Any person who has ever opened their mailbox to find a letter from them during non-tax season can attest to how scary that can be.

An Inspector General determined the agency used its power to target conservative groups trying to get non-exempt status.

It does not matter if the president had direct knowledge of the situation. People are already skeptical of our government, and he is the head of it. If the scandal continues to unfold, he will take heat.

And finally, there has been controversy regarding the government’s heavy-handed approach to scrutinizing the Associated Press and other media. The government went as far as to name Fox News reporter James Rosen as a criminal co-conspirator in one situation. Though the public rarely has sympathy for the media, the government’s actions here deserve intense scrutiny.

If they will do this to the media, won’t they do it to you and me?

Keeping it together

In the immediate aftermath of the election earlier this month, the public’s reaction was something to behold. Obviously, people were going to be excited or disappointed based upon the candidate for which they voted.

I witnessed a lot of regrettable behavior that only validates how polarized we are as a country. I know the stakes are high in a presidential election, and in a sense, it is good that people feel so deeply about it because it shows they care. In recent years, there has been much discussion about voter apathy, so all this emotion can be considered good in that respect.

However, some behavior I witnessed clearly crossed the line. Much of the poor behavior was witnessed through social media like Twitter and Facebook. As good as those resources are, they can be used for bad, and this badness was there for all to see on election night.

Social media can bring out the bad in us if we let it. After all, it is a lot easier to insult somebody if we are not doing it to his face. It’s true that these resources do require a name be put with comments made, but many people definitely let the expletives fly when they do not have to worry about a person in front of them.

People on both sides of the spectrum were in rare form. Some who voted for Romney bemoaned that the president's re-election marked the beginning of the end of America as a super power. Some attempted to tie Obama’s selection to the end times in Biblical prophecy in which world power would be shifted back to the Middle East. It's clear that some of these people view Obama as something more than a man who just wants to serve his country (and not in a good way).

On the other side, some of the president’s supporters reduced Romney to just another rich white guy, but did it in profane ways. His family and religion were attacked in very narrow-minded ways. Like Obama, I believe Romney was a man who just wanted to serve his country, but people had plenty of venom for him, too.

I know a lot of these things were said during the campaign, but the vitriol, profanity and anger were taken to another level on election night. I have refrained from using direct quotes from people to back up my points. However, just a little time spent researching on-line backs up my point.

The obvious question is:  Where do we go from here? This behavior clearly shows our country’s polarization remains deeply entrenched. Our leaders made good faith comments about wanting to work together, but we have heard that all before. We heard the same thing after the 2008 election, and how far did that go?  Not far because the same problem was worse four years later.

We are all going to continue to disagree with each other. However, if the power of our disagreements continues to intensify, we may reach a point of not turning back. Our unity may erode in a substantial way, and our country may become as fragmented as Europe. This possibility keeps me awake at night.

I don't want to believe that can happen, but a lot has changed in my short life. Life has become much more of a blood sport where humility and graciousness have taken a back seat to winning at all costs.

It is tainting our political discourse, and it is wearing moderates like me out. Moderates are usually the ones left to clean up the messes of extremists.  If we vacate the arena of debate, our country may eventually hit rock bottom.

Obama will win the election on Tuesday

Keep in mind this is not an endorsement because I do not endorse candidates.  That said, I believe President Obama will win re-election on Tuesday.  I have digested more polls than I care to recall and read oodles of political information from organizations all over the ideological spectrum.  Based on that, signs point to the president winning. Many national polls have it very close, but we do not elect the president through a general election.  We elect the president through the Electoral College. The polls are close in Ohio (a key state) but most show Obama ahead by between one to five points. Even the polls on FOX show Obama with a lead there.  It would take a miracle for Romney to win if he loses Ohio.  I suppose a miracle could happen, but I don't see it.

Will Obama win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote?

Mercifully, the presidential race comes to a close on Tuesday. All the pontificating will end, and most of us will go back to living normal lives without candidates trying to convince us how great they are. However, this experience has included more than candidates.

For example:  Polls. I am sick of polls. Each day, several organizations release polls telling us how the race is going in various states and across the nation as a whole. It is all a bunch of noise to me because news organizations rarely release information about the methodology used to create these polls. Still, the possibilities indicated by them are intriguing.

Perhaps the most fascinating possibility is the chance one candidate will win the popular vote and the other the Electoral College. To be elected president, a candidate must win 270 votes in the Electoral College. In a sense, it does not matter who wins the popular vote because 270 is the magic number.

Because of Mitt Romney's popularity throughout a big chunk of the country, some pundits are floating the real possibility that he could win the popular vote, but President Obama still win the Electoral College.

Our country is incredibly polarized when it comes to politics, and if this happens, the roof might blow off. However, we must not forget that this very scenario happened only 12 years ago.

Tennessee's Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won the electoral vote and became president. Democrats cried foul, and the climax of the election was unique to be sure because of the problems in Florida.

Those poor folks in Florida demonstrated how easy it is to mess up an election. Because of their errors, many claimed the presidency was stolen from Gore. However, this was not the case. The bitter irony for Gore is that he would have won if he had simply won his home state.

In the aftermath of all that, there were cries from a lot of people to do away with the Electoral College and elect the president by popular vote. Of course, most of the people who said that were Democrats upset about the election while Republicans steadfastly defended the current system.

However, if Romney won the popular vote but lost the election, there would be a complete role reversal. Democrats would get the White House while Republicans would be on the outside looking in. Do we really believe Republicans would go gently into that good night?

Not hardly. I am sure many of them would cry just as loudly as Democrats did in 2000. Some of the Democrats would be in the awkward position of supporting a process some denounced only a decade ago.

In addition to this, there is one other possibility that is even spicier. Apparently, there is at least one scenario in which Obama and Romney could tie with 269 electoral votes each. In this case, the House of Representatives would select the president and the Senate would choose the vice president.

Because of the parties that control those bodies, Romney would likely be selected president and Joe Biden vice president.

This may not reflect well on me, but I would love to see this scenario play out. After the shrillness of the campaign, it would be a fitting way to bring it all to a close. Both sides have beaten the other to a bloody pulp the last few months. This has occurred to the great annoyance of many citizens.

What better way for election night to end with neither candidate being able to say they won? I think it would be tremendously symbolic, but then again, not all people like to live through history being made.

Obama and Romney both provided memorable campaign lowlights

Election Day is now only a little more than one week away, and for some, it cannot come soon enough. Of course, it has already come and gone for people taking advantage of the early voting period.

For those people, they can kick back and turn down the noise associated with the election process. They have a unique opportunity to enjoy some peace and quiet until the votes are counted.

There are many races on the ballot, but the big one is for the presidency. Regardless of who a person votes for, I think it is important to remember that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney appear to be decent and intelligent men who are trying to offer their services to the country. They both have many positive qualities.

Despite this, both men have made substantial missteps during the campaign, resulting in situations that have left us shaking our heads.

For the president, his primary misstep has been the whole tone of his campaign. It has been vastly different compared to 2008. Back then, he swept up the nation with optimism in a campaign that promised "hope" and "change." Our nation was in a big mess then (as is the case now), but his campaign in 2008 had an idealism that is rare in national politics.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case with his current campaign. This year's effort has been marred by negativity, negativity, and more negativity. When talking about negativity, I am not referring to his criticizing of Romney's political record. That is fair game. I am referring to the unseemly personal attacks that are nothing more than cheap shots.

However, this approach has been effective to a certain degree. For several months, the president had effectively turned Romney into just another rich guy who would not talk about his taxes and did not care about the middle class.

At the first presidential debate, this changed as much of America got a good look at Romney for perhaps the first time. After that, Romney surged in the polls. Many attribute the surge to Obama’s poor performance in that debate, but it was likely that voters saw Romney in a way that did not fit the image projected by the president's campaign.

The president, on the other hand, has come across as just another politician who will do what it takes to get elected. It is always a red flag when an incumbent does not run on his record, and Obama has done a lot of this.

Just like Obama, Romney has made big mistakes. His most unfortunate one was his infamous "47 percent" comment. He was caught at a private function stating that 47 percent of the public were going to vote for President Obama anyway because they were dependent on the government and viewed themselves as victims.

He implied the people in this group were a bunch of slackers who did not want to take personal responsibility for their lives, and it was up to the government to take care of them.

His statements were a textbook example of how over-generalizing complex issues can result in ridiculous statements. Defenders of Romney claimed it was unfair that the statements were recorded undercover at a private event. However, it is important that these comments came to light.

Comments like these are examples of what politicians say behind closed doors when the prying eye of the media is not there. Candidates often change their tune depending on who their audience is, and these comments were mean and condescending.

To his credit, Romney has admitted he was wrong, but children often say the same thing when caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

The perfect ending for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

To be elected president, a candidate must win 270 electoral votes. Based on what is being reported, there is at least one scenario where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney could end up tied with 269 electoral votes each. 

This may not reflect well on me, but I wish this would happen. As shrill as this entire campaign has been, it would be a fitting climax. 

If that happened, the House of Representatives would choose the president and the Senate would choose the vice president. Because of the parties that control those bodies, it means Romney would likely be chosen president and Joe Biden vice president. The result would be a MADHOUSE!!!!! A MADHOUSE!!!!!

Who could ask for anything more?

Withering civility in a testy political season

We are only a few weeks away from the presidential election, and civility continues to erode when it comes to discussing the important issues of the day.

This is not happening just among the candidates running for office, but among people like you and me. On the bright side, it is good that people are feeling so passionately about the issues, but the end result of this passion is that we appear to be becoming more polarized than ever.

Let us look at the candidates in the presidential race. We are definitely seeing an overload of negative campaigning and attempts to make the other look like a royal idiot. Some negativity is acceptable, but the key is balance.

When it comes to negativity, it is perfectly okay for candidates to criticize the records of their opponents. For example, it is fine for President Barack Obama to be critical of Mitt Romney’s stances on issues and other parts of his political background. Equally, Romney has the right to go after Obama’s track record as president and be critical when appropriate.

However, where they both go wrong is when the attacks get personal and try to reduce the other to nothing more than a cartoon figure. For months, the Obama campaign has painted Romney as a rich guy who does not pay his taxes and does not care about the middle class.

On the other hand, the Romney campaign has played the same game by trying to reduce Obama to nothing more than an empty suit who is aloof and really has nothing of substance to say.

This lack of civility was also on display during the vice presidential debate. Vice President Joe Biden repeatedly laughed and sneered as his opponent Paul Ryan tried to make his points. Seriously, did Biden really think it would be effective to laugh while a serious discussion about Iran’s nuclear capabilities was taking place? It was another low moment in a campaign of lows.

Of course, this lack of civility has a trickle down effect. We see it take place through the mainstream media every day. Conflict is the mother’s milk of the 24-hour news channels where opponents verbally duke it out in a vain attempt to make points.

I really do not understand how this became such a popular technique for the networks to use. The conflict often overtakes the points trying to be made. Because of this, viewers are turned off and the words spoken by those people often come across like the braying of donkeys.

The trickle down effect also flows down to the general public. I recently read a story on the Cable News Network’s web site that stated one-fifth of the people who use social media have ended on-line friendships simply because of political disagreements.

A person could make the point that a friendship must not have been very meaningful if it was ended because of a political difference, but I have seen relationships severed for a lot less than that.

The bottom line is our nation has become more and more polarized in recent years when it comes to political issues. We choose sides and become enemies if people have the audacity to see issues differently than we do.

It is a crying shame that it has come to this. It used to be that the deepest relationships we had with people were ones where we could sharply disagree but still have dinner afterward.

However, it is not too late. We can all step back from the ledge we are looking over if we become a little less focused on ourselves and more on other people. This is an old recipe for happiness, but it still works.

Big decision coming with presidential election one month away

It is a little more than one month until Election Day when voters will decide whether President Barack Obama will get to serve a second term or Republican nominee Mitt Romney will get the opportunity to lead our country.

Based on what I have read, most people reading this have already made up their minds for who they will vote. Barring a remarkable event, there is little chance these people will have a change of heart.

I do not know whether this is good or bad, but it is an indicator that Obama and Romney are chasing a small group of undecided voters who could tilt the election one way or the other.

Couple that with the apathetic people who will not bother to vote and this small pool of undecided voters gets that much smaller. Of course, apathetic people have a right to their apathy in much the same way that passionate people have a right to their passion. In some respects, it is a shame these apathetic people will not bother to vote.

However, if these voters are apathetic to the point that they are uninformed on the issues, then maybe it is a good idea they are staying home. I do not want to ride in a car if the driver has not bothered to get a license and the same principle applies to people who vote. If a person does not have basic knowledge about what is going on, then I will not shed a tear if they choose not to vote.

For the people who do vote, the election is basically a referendum on how well President Obama has done in the last four years. Of course, there are wildly diverging points of view on this.

Supporters of the president will point out our struggles of the last four years would have been much worse if he had not taken steps like supporting the quarter-of-a-trillion dollar stimulus package that was meant to help our economy as it sputtered. The supporters state he inherited a big mess, and it was so large that four years was not enough time to produce substantial improvement.

Critics will point out the last four years have been a failure in which unemployment has remained above eight percent, and many economists predict problems will continue. They will say the president has taken a big government approach that has yielded few results, and it has resulted in a national debt now above $16 trillion. They feel more debt will strangle the long-term prospects of the country.

Usually, I do not publicly state for who I will vote and I will not now. But I do have some pretty deep feelings about the upcoming election.

Deep in my heart, I believe this is the most important presidential election of my lifetime. Our country’s challenges are real and cannot be solved overnight.

The economy remains in a mess. We are still fighting a war in Afghanistan even though nobody seems to want to talk about it.

I fear our standing in the international community is slipping as the recent protests by radical Muslims demonstrate.

Whether it will be Obama or Romney who will lead us in the coming four years, I hope all of us will dedicate ourselves to holding our elected officials more accountable. For several years, the primary goals of our leaders seem to have been to maintain power rather than actually lead.

That is not a knock at one person or one political party. There is plenty of blame to go around, and we need to do a better job of clearing our throats when monitoring them.

It is our government, you know.

Gas price anger will cause President Obama big problems

It is only the early days of March, but gas prices are already hovering around $3.60 a gallon. We often associate price spikes like this with the summer vacation season, but this is not the case this year.

There are many words I would like to use to describe this situation, but unfortunately, this is a family-based blog and profanity is not used.

And, believe me, I would really like to use those words. Every time I fill up my tank, I get dizzy as I watch the numbers spin on the gas pump. It is like watching some weird kind of slot machine that I know always stops with me being the loser.

For those expecting an analysis of the situation, prepare to be disappointed. I am not interested in digging at the root cause for these high prices. This column is only about expressing frustration.

We have heard all the excuses. Some say the high prices are because of tensions in the Middle East caused by Iran. Others say it is the fault of speculators. Others say it is the greedy oil companies.

The fault probably lies in all those excuses. However, the bottom line is experts do not expect the prices to come down soon. Actually, the worst is yet to come as prices are expected to surge above four dollars a gallon. There are some who predict prices could reach as high as five dollars.

For a culture that depends so much on automobiles, the coming months could be grizzly for most of us. Transportation costs will continue to take a big wet bite out of our budgets, and money that could be better used elsewhere will continue to go into our cars.

For all the losers in a situation like this, the biggest loser could be President Barack Obama. At times like this, the public tends to take its frustration out on the person living in the White House.

Like George W. Bush before him, many have been looking toward Obama for direction on this issue, and so far, many have been disappointed. However, how much impact can a president have on gas prices?

Based on my knowledge, not a lot. Still, a president is like the quarterback of a football team. When the team wins, the quarterback gets too much of the credit. When the team loses, he gets too much of the blame. The same goes for a president.

Well, our team is currently losing on this issue so the president should expect criticism of him to continue. Unfortunately for him, this is a presidential election year. Because of this, the Republican nominee is guaranteed to have an issue in which to criticize him that will resonate with the public.

High gas prices impact everybody. It impacts citizens, but also companies see higher transportation costs. They will not just eat those costs; they will pass them along to you and me. Expect higher grocery prices because of this.

Also, people will not travel as far if they get to take a vacation this year. Even simple pleasures could take a pounding if gas prices continue to climb.

Basically, we have nobody but ourselves to blame for this situation. We have set our culture up to be heavily dependent on gas, and when others play hardball with a resource like this, all we can do is smile and pay.

Of course, it is a forced smile. By the end of the summer, we will all be masters when it comes to sarcastically smiling.

We will be smiling, but we will not mean it. It is nothing to be happy about.

Obama's vacation just bad timing

To be successful, good preparation is often the most important ingredient in any effort we attempt. After all, if we do not put enough work into considering all the angles, then our plans can go dreadfully wrong.

Of course, preparation is not the only aspect to consider. Sometimes we can prepare as much as possible, but if our timing is wrong then we can alienate a whole lot of people.

Bad timing is especially tricky when it comes to our elected officials. When times our good, our politicians often try to exploit the situation by making speeches or making proposals that make them look good. In these situations, they are trying to build momentum for themselves regarding how the public views them.

However, when times our bad, the slightest action or statement can aggravate the public. President Obama recently found this out the hard way when he went on vacation with his family to Martha's Vineyard up in New England.

There is no doubt that our nation's economy is stumbling and bumbling, and many people are suffering. The national unemployment rate remains about nine percent, and the stock market has been erratic.

Because of this, the president has taken a lot of heat for going on vacation while our nation is going through hard times. The media has not done the president any favors with its coverage of his pleasure trip, and this situation has been easily exploited by his opponents.

Despite the problems our nation is facing, there is nothing wrong with the president going on vacation. His only problem has been that his timing is bad.

We all go on vacations, and since the president has the most stressful job in the world, I do not think it is outrageous for him to spend some time away from Washington. His time off is a working vacation. It is not as if he stopped being president while relaxing.

True, the economy stinks right now, but we are kidding ourselves if we believe our problems would be solved if the president stayed in Washington. Times are tough and will continue to be so. Our problems were not caused overnight, and there are no quick solutions.

Since Congress is not in session, I do not see many benefits that can come by him staying in Washington. I think it would be a waste of time. It is ironic that more of our Congressmen are not under the same scrutiny because a lot of them are on vacation right now, too.

On this issue, the solitary nature of the office of the president is hurting Obama. With the presidency, we can always direct our complaints at a specific person when we are frustrated, and an issue like this makes a president especially vulnerable. People rarely complain when their senators go on vacation because a lot of people do not even know who their senators are.

But everyone knows who the president is. And the president will always be a lightning rod even on issues as trivial as going on vacation.

The bottom line is this is nothing new. For those old enough to remember, President Ronald Reagan was criticized a lot when he spent time at his ranch in California when the economy struggled during his first term. The same went for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

This issue is insignificant compared to all the other challenges we face. We need to drop it and get focused on the big changes our nation is facing.

The more we let issues like this distract us, the longer it will take to get our nation back to normal.

It's time to pay attention to the 2012 presidential campaign

It is July, and the temperatures are sky high as we trudge through another summer. However, our thoughts need to be turning to the winter when the 2012 presidential campaign kicks into high gear.

Whether we like it or not, the major caucuses and primaries for the campaign begin about seven months from now. That is less time than the length of an average pregnancy.

Because of this, we need to begin pondering the race. On the Democratic side, President Barack Obama will likely face little meaningful opposition as he moves toward getting his party’s nomination.

The president is truly gifted when it comes to fundraising, and some experts predict he will raise as much as $1 billion dollars to spend against his Republican challenger. This alone refutes the long-time stereotype that the GOP is the only party of big money. The pockets on the Democratic side plunge plenty deep as well.

The race for the Republican nomination continues to take shape. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been anointed the early frontrunner, but I do not see how anybody can be a frontrunner at this point.

True, Romney ran for the nomination in 2008 and probably has the edge when it comes to name recognition. However, the Republican candidates have not been in front of a large audience in a meaningful way yet.

Also, there are some people who are considering running who have not made up their mind yet. So, let us ease up on all this frontrunner talk.

Another person getting some early recognition from Republicans is Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. She is a darling of the Tea Party set so it will be critical for her to appeal to moderate Republicans as well.

If her campaign continues to progress, it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media treats her with the blatant sexism it has with other women candidates in recent years.

The most obvious and dreadful example of this was how the media treated Hillary Clinton when she ran against Obama in 2008. While they tossed softball question after softball question to Obama, Clinton was peppered with serious policy questions like she was a hockey goalie.

I have no problem with our presidential candidates being placed under intense scrutiny, but Clinton got the heat applied to her way more intensely than Obama did.

Another example of sexism from that campaign was the treatment of Sarah Palin. Because of her looks and style, many tried to dismiss her as a lightweight. While she has many shortcomings when it comes to politics, the intensity of the early attempts to marginalize her was breathtaking.

For those reading this who believe it is too early to start focusing on 2012, my advice is to wake up. Our country faces monumental problems right now.

Unemployment remains above nine percent in many states. Energy costs are still unacceptably high. Prices have been slowly rising at the grocery store. When prices for fundamentals like food and gasoline are high, politicians need to be put on the hot seat.

The basic questions we need to ask ourselves are: On a personal level, are you better off than you were four years ago? On a national level, is our nation better off than it was four years ago?

The way those questions are answered should guide how a person votes. Then again, I am assuming most people reading this will actually vote. Voter apathy remains a demon, and the sad truth is most reading this will not vote.

Just what we need – four more years of whining from a constituency who can not be bothered to get involved.

Gas prices choking us all and hurting President Obama

Back on the January 8, I wrote about how experts were predicting that the price of gas would spike upward in 2011. Almost from the moment of my posting, gas prices have steadily increased.

Locally, we can consider ourselves somewhat lucky as the cost of gas remains around 20 cents below the national average. Still, the prices here hover around the $3.65 level, and we are all experiencing the impact of these prices.

When studying media reports about the cause for the increase, most of the reporting focuses on instability in the Middle East. After all, our nation does get a big chunk of its oil from there. Therefore, it stands to reason that we would be impacted if there were problems there.

However, the big problem regarding this excuse is that the original predictions about price increases occurred before the recent Middle East problems.

The predictions came before the Egyptian revolution. They came before the civil war in Libya. Several other countries in that region have also experienced unrest, but this was all after the predictions of price increases. So, this can't be the reason why this is happening.

I really feel the media has dropped the ball. All too often, they are content to simply rely on the 'Middle East excuse' regarding this situation. This means very little reporting of substance is being done.

As a nation, we like to complain about this problem, but a lot of the blame for it lies with us. Back in 2008 when prices soared above $4 a gallon, there was plenty of rhetoric about change, but our nation's driving habits have not changed that much.

True, the recession caused all of us to cut back a little, but when I travel the interstates (and I do that a lot), I still see plenty of large vehicles with drivers pushing the gas pedal to the floor.

We can talk all we want about alternative technology to decrease our dependence on gas and oil, but if we all drove less, it would go a long way toward improving this problem.

The high prices in 2008 set the bar when it comes to what Americans will pay for gas. Now, the oil speculators and oil companies are trying to nudge that bar a little higher. It is up to us to stand our ground.

Will we do that? I do not know, but based on our past behavior, I am not optimistic.

The political fallout from this situation has begun. President Barack Obama recently directed the U.S. Attorney General to investigate the situation. While this seems noble, I really do not know what the president is trying to accomplish.

He says he wants those who are possibly breaking the law or exploiting the situation to be punished. The president really is not going out on a limb here, but he may be realizing that he stands to lose a lot if this persists.

More than ever, people cast votes based on issues that impact their wallets and pocketbooks. High prices at the gas pump are one of the few economic issues that hurt everybody. Nobody gets out alive on this issue.

Some experts are now saying gas prices could reach $6 a gallon by the end of the year. If this really happens, Obama will have to do some serious damage control.

President George Bush was vilified when prices skyrocketed in 2008. Will the same happen to Obama?

Generally, Obama gets the easy treatment from the media. However, this could begin to change very soon.

GOP must think long term

The events of the last few weeks in Washington infuriated the public as both Republicans and Democrats appeared silly to many while negotiating budget cuts.

Actually, these events were not silly. We have been witnessing a classic example of two parties banging heads about the path the federal government should take.

Led by President Barack Obama, Democrats have an approach that believes government can genuinely fix the problems our nation faces. While the government can help, it cannot truly solve the biggest challenges of our time. This is because our nation's biggest problems deal with its morality and no government program can heal that.

Still, I think the Democrats' hearts are in the right place though they are often misguided.

On the other hand, Republicans have been approaching our federal budget with an ax as they try to come to terms with our nation's debt. After all, the nation's debt now exceeds $14 trillion. Call me crazy, but I think that is excessive.

In 2010, voters gave control of the House of Representatives back to the Republicans primarily as a reaction to the spending of the Democrats and the Obama administration.

Republicans have been trying to use that mandate to make aggressive inroads on spending. However, make no mistake: Republicans also embrace the idea of a large federal government. Though it does not seem that way when analyzing the rhetoric they use, the Democrats were not the only party at the wheel as we drove toward the massive federal government we have now.

If Republicans in the House of Representatives are genuinely serious about reducing the size of the federal government, then the party has to change its strategy. The party must stop focusing on issues and legislation that will not be passed by the Democratically-controlled U.S. Senate or signed into law by the president.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee recently said that Republicans should abandon their crusades against organizations like Planned Parenthood and focus on budget proposals that will gain traction with the public.

"As much as I want to see Planned Parenthood defunded...the reality is the president and the Senate are never going to go along with that so win the deal you can win and live to fight another day," Huckabee said.

If the economy continues to falter, financial matters will resonate with voters in 2012 far more than funding for Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio.

When it comes to the economy, our leaders have really set the bar low when defining what is considered progress. Last month, when it was announced that unemployment had dropped below nine percent, it was presented to us as if it was a milestone that should produce cheers.

Ironically, the blueprint for a Republican victory in 2012 was unveiled 20 years ago by then-Democratic candidate Bill Clinton.

As the 1992 race approached, he faced incumbent George Bush who was struggling because of a sputtering economy. His campaign memorably gained momentum by stating: "It's the economy, stupid."

The more the economy struggled, the more the Clinton campaign successfully criticized Bush as a president out of touch with the struggles of the average American. Clinton won the election.

Still, this may all be a moot point. As I wrote several weeks ago, I believe President Obama will be re-elected. The economy was bad when he took over, and the public will likely give him another term to figure it out.

Additionally, if voters keep a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives, it will increase Obama's likelihood of re-election. Despite how much voters say they hate gridlock, they are also uneasy about giving one party control of both the White House and Congress.

Job market still miserable

When a new year begins, it is supposed to bring in a wave of optimism. After all, if people can not be optimistic at the beginning of a process, when can they be upbeat?

Well, last week's unemployment numbers dropped a big wet blanket on the early optimism of 2011. Although the national unemployment rate did drop to 9.4 percent, job gains in the private sector were less than anticipated.

In December, only 103,000 jobs were added nationwide, according to the Labor Department. It had been hoped that up to 150,000 jobs would be added, but it did not happen.

President Obama did try to spin this news in an optimistic way. He emphasized that December was the twelfth consecutive month in which the private sector added jobs. He said this was the first time this had happened since 2006.

I guess that is the silver lining in this very dark cloud.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke probably gave the most honest assessment of the situation when he said “it could take four to five more years for the job market to normalize fully.”

The reason is that the economy lost a whole lot of jobs in 2008 and 2009. It lost 8.5 million during that time, according to The Los Angeles Times. Since then, the economy has only recovered 1.1 million of them.

It does not take a math scholar to realize that it is going to take a long time to get back to where we were a few years ago. For example, to get the unemployment rate back down near five percent again, the economy would need to create approximately 335,000 jobs a month for the next four years, according to The Times.

As December's pathetic numbers show us, we are not even close to that.

So, what does this mean? It means our nation continues to face tough times, and our elected officials have to go on the offensive when it comes to creating jobs.

However, I am not sure our officials are totally in tune with this reality. For instance, when the new Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives took over earlier this month, one of its first items of business was to debate about what to do with the Obamacare healthcare package that passed last year.

Now, I have a lot of concerns about that reform package. The cost associated with the package will create financial challenges for businesses and could impact their ability to hire people.

However, should this have been at the top of the agenda for the Republicans given all the other challenges our nation faces?

Anything passed in the House on this matter will certainly be vetoed by the Democratically-controlled Senate. Attacking Obamacare right now is a waste of time. All the posturing that took place appeared insensitive to the millions of Americans looking for work and needing a little assistance from our elected officials.

Put yourself in the shoes of somebody who has been unemployed for a long time. Your life is already on edge. A weekly unemployment check is not nearly enough to meet your bills. Then, you come home in the evening, turn on the television, and get greeted by the spectacle of our leaders ignoring the most important domestic issue we have.

Yes, I know discussions on the economy have picked up in the last week. However, it all seemed so dreadfully symbolic of the disconnect between Washington and the rest of the nation.

The bottom line is people reading this who have a good job should be grateful for it.

Even if a person dislikes his job they should feel gratitude. There are a lot of people who would gladly take it if given the opportunity.

Will high gas prices equal trouble for President Obama in 2012?

Listen up all you drivers who consume gasoline like Coca-Cola because some really bad news may be heading your way in the next year or so.

In a recent interview with Platt's Energy Week television, the former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, said Americans could be paying as much as $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.

Though other experts in the industry disagree with this prediction, Hofmeister's comments should be a wake-up call for us all. Recently, oil prices exceeded $90 a barrel, and anybody who traveled during the Christmas holiday can attest that gas prices have crept higher.

While gas prices remained slightly below the $3 a gallon mark in our area, many places in the country were not so lucky. Especially in the Northeast, gas prices jumped above $3.10 a gallon.

It appears that we may go through a sequel of a really bad nightmare. Only a couple of years ago, prices surged above $4 a gallon, and the complaining from drivers was shrill and annoying.

Back then, many of us paid a dear price for having developed bad driving habits that included purchasing SUVs the size of tanks that got really bad gas mileage. Have we learned from that? I guess we will find out if Hofmeister’s prediction comes true.

If nothing else, we learned in 2008 that people will say anything to avoid taking responsibility for their own decisions when it comes to driving habits. Among the more humorous complaints during that period was that President George W. Bush was involved in some sort of conspiracy with the big oil companies to keep prices high.

Of course, from a political standpoint, this point of view made no sense whatsoever. It would have been political suicide to do anything of this nature. The bottom line is people had developed excessive driving habits and the cost cut deep into our wallets when we filled up at the pumps.

If Hofmeister's prediction comes true, I wonder if similar conspiracy theories will be hurled at President Barack Obama. Given how volatile our national political landscape is, I'm sure some crackpot will.

However, consider this: Unemployment remains unacceptably high, and in 2012, Obama runs for re-election.

If he has to run for re-election with both unemployment and gas prices high, it could be a nasty campaign. I will go on record now and predict that Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Still, if he has to battle those two issues, it will be a rough grind for him.

Last year's mid-term elections showed us all that voters are already impatient with Washington. Extremely high gas prices could become another issue that make folks rage against the machine in Washington.

To a large degree, this would be a repeat of what happened a couple years ago. People would not take responsibility for their decisions back then, and I do not believe they will in 2012 if prices do reach $5 a gallon.

It is always convenient to blame somebody else, and politicians make especially easy targets these days. I understand that my point of view on this is pretty cynical, but human nature being what it is, I can't imagine this unfolding any other way.

Still, 2012 is almost a full 12 months away, and there is still time to re-shape our driving habits. This could ease the demand for gasoline, causing Hofmeister's prediction to become just another comment that will not come true.

After all, people make predictions every day that come and go like the wind.

In this case, let us hope that Hofmeister's prediction gets blown away with the force a tornado brings.

If it does not, it will be us that will get blown away at the gas pump.

High unemployment is issue that could doom Democrats next month

We are only a few weeks away from next month's election, and both Democrats and Republicans are already sweating what should be an exciting sprint to the finish line.

There is a lot at stake. For President Barack Obama, he has had the luxury of having both the U.S. House and Senate controlled by Democratic majorities for the first two years of his presidency.

Because of this, he has been able to pass healthcare reform and other legislation that he promised to voters when he ran for president in 2008. Republicans, on the other hand, have had to sit on their hands and brood while watching this happen.

However, a few factors have made Democrats vulnerable in the election. Most significantly, the economy remains sluggish, and unemployment is still high.

Though many experts have stated the recession ended last year, it has been difficult to convince the skeptical public of that. Unemployment remains unacceptably high. The national unemployment rate for September was 9.6 percent, and the rate remains above 10 percent in several states.

Many economists have pointed out that unemployment usually is a lagging indicator when it comes to determining our economic health.

This makes sense. Typically, businesses want to be absolutely certain that the economy is strengthening before taking on the considerable cost of hiring more people. Because of this, unemployment rates can remain high even after a recession has ended.

The real frustration that a lot of the public is feeling is that the unemployment rate has remained at an extraordinarily high level for a prolonged time.

We all got used to unemployment levels down around five percent before the economy tanked. Like many things before the bubble burst, we are not going to see unemployment levels that low for a long time.

With this frustration building, Democrats find themselves facing an election with a whole lot of angry voters.

All voters can see at this point is the figure of 9.6 percent. They have no patience for explanations of how there have been improvements when it comes to hiring in the private sector.

For example, 64,000 jobs in the private sector were added in September. Though that amount should be described as ‘tepid,’ it is the ninth consecutive month in which the private sector added jobs.

However, for unemployment these days, there is a step back for every step forward. Though the private sector added jobs, the public sector lost 159,000 jobs in September. Most of these losses were cuts by local and state governments trying to balance their budgets and temporary U.S. census workers getting laid off.

On top of this, the unemployment rate does not take into consideration those who are 'under-employed.' Under-employed people are those who have had to take jobs of less than 40 hours.

In many cases, this is done because a person is running out of unemployment benefits and has to grab low-paying, part-time jobs just to keep some money coming in. Estimates vary, but some experts put the under-employment rate at 16 to 17 percent.

Additionally, there are people who have run out of unemployment benefits and have simply given up looking for a job. They slip through the cracks of the unemployment rate as well.

The bottom line is incumbents have a lot of explaining to do, and it will be interesting to see just how mad voters are next month.

Frankly, at this point, I do not have a lot of confidence in either the Democrats or Republicans. Their main focus seems to be maintaining power instead of working together.

How about a third party?

I am starting to warm to the idea.

BP, President Obama, and the oil spill disaster blues

The weeks grind on and the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico continues to emerge as one of the largest catastrophes in recent memory.

The events of the last month or so have really been unbelievable. The credibility of BP will begin rivaling Enron if substantially better news about the situation does not emerge soon.

Comparing BP to Enron may be a stretch, but they are both examples of corporate incompetence that will impact our nation for years to come. Enron ripped people off for financial gain. In a sense, BP has as well because the company clearly overreached in its bid for bigger profits.

BP rolled the dice by drilling for oil without an acceptable emergency response plan, and now the company may never recover from a financial and public relations perspective.

I have given a lot of thought regarding what word best describes BP, and the one that fits best is 'stupid.' I know that is not a fancy word, but my goodness, BP has to be the stupidest corporation on the planet.

What in God's name was BP thinking? The company chose to push the envelope when drilling while crossing its fingers that a worst case scenario would never take place.

Like an acrobat who tries to thrill a crowd without a net, BP was hoping that the law of averages would not catch up with it. After all, what were the chances that there would be an explosion killing many while producing an oil spill roughly the size of South Carolina?

It is easy to take those risks when the person making those decisions is tucked away in an office building far away from the workers who have to deal with the peril. I do not know if any of these decisions were criminal, but if they were, it is another example of how the worst crimes in our society are often committed by people who wear suits and ties to work every day.

Of course, there has been plenty of political fallout from this. President Obama has been roasted for the federal government's perceived slow response to this situation. The howls from Louisiana have been long and loud.

When a Democratic die hard like James Carville publicly criticizes the president, it shows that politically loyalty can only be pushed so far. I have always found Carville to be an odd but fascinating fellow, and I commend him for speaking his mind.

As for Obama, it is hard to explain why he chose to approach the situation as he did. True, federal agencies were providing assistance early on and letting BP take the lead in fixing the well was probably the right decision.

However, Obama badly bungled this from a public relations standpoint. This is a misstep for a man whose strength is communicating with people. Days dragged into weeks before he made any meaty statements about the situation.

By that time, he was coming across as passive and ineffective when it came to his leadership. For critics looking for any opportunity to pounce on him, Obama gave them plenty of ammunition.

The criticism of him hit a point of critical mass when people began comparing his handling of the situation to the way the Bush administration handled Hurricane Katrina.

As much as the left wing hated Bush, these comparisons had to have stung.

These problems will not go away anytime soon. The mid-term elections are approaching, and Democrats were already beginning to sweat regarding their ability to maintain firm majorities in the House and Senate.

This disaster may have given Republicans a gift that may keep giving until November.

(Note: The photo with this posting was taken by the Associated Press.)

Obama snub of Nashville flood victims is shameful

The month of May began with a nearly unprecedented flood in Nashville that resulted in approximately 20 deaths and $2 billion in damage. In my book, that is a catastrophe. Take it from somebody who lives an hour from the city and works there. Some people have suffered deeply.

In the aftermath of this, I have been wondering more and more where President Barack Obama has been in all this. True, federal financial relief has been approved for those impacted, and some administration officials have visited the city.

Still, I am amazed that the president apparently feels that this disaster does not deserve a brief visit to the city. In late April, he attended a memorial service for 29 West Virginia miners who were killed while working. I am glad he did that because it was appropriate. Still, the Nashville disaster has resulted in almost as many deaths and considerably more damage.

My cynical side tells me this is all about politics. Tennessee is a solidly 'red' state that voted for Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. West Virginia is a Democratic stronghold.

So, has the president avoided coming to Nashville because he views it as politically unfriendly? Does he believe Tennessee is a lost cause heading into his 2012 re-election campaign making it a small priority to him?

I hope the answer to both questions is 'no.' However, I fear the answer is 'yes.'

Truth and cynicism are often the same.

If the Secret Service can't protect the White House, what can it protect?

Last week, Michaele and Tareq Salahi crashed President Obama's dinner honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and greatly embarrassed the Secret Service. They were uninvited, but somehow got inside the White House and even posed in pictures with some attendees like Vice President Joe Biden.

Incredible. I don't know what kind of story they used to talk themselves into the building, but it must have been a good one. Of course, the big issue is that President Obama could have been at great risk if they had meant to do him harm. While it is true attendees had to go through metal detectors to get in, it doesn't mean that they couldn't have used something like anthrax to hurt him.

However, there is no evidence at all that they meant ill will. It appears nothing more than a publicity stunt for them. Mrs. Salahi is apparently in the hunt to appear on a reality television show (big surprise, right?). If the goal was publicity, they succeeded.

Still, this makes me very uneasy regarding the president's security. If something like this can happen, the Secret Service needs to re-think its policies and procedures. And fast.

President Obama misguided in picking fight with Fox News

The struggle to manipulate and control information is a constant battle for most politicians. They want to control how their messages reach the public.

As the media's size has exploded over the last couple of decades, this has become much more difficult. The expanded presence of newspapers on the Internet, 24-hour cable news channels, and talk radio have all played major roles in causing headaches for politicians.

This is good news for the public. The public needs access to information from many different outlets in order to develop a well-rounded viewpoint on issues. However, the battle between politicians and the media remains a spirited one.

A recent example of this was when the Obama administration began a campaign of sorts to discredit the Fox News cable channel. Administration officials like White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have appeared on high profile shows to criticize Fox.

The main point being made by officials is that Fox really is not a news reporting organization. They claim it is really a televised form of talk radio, and because of this, the network should not be considered on the same level as organizations like the Cable News Network (CNN).

The timing of the administration's efforts is curious. Right now, President Obama is grappling with how to handle the war in Afghanistan and guide our economy out of its severe rut. Yet, despite all these problems, the president is apparently expending quite a bit of time to discredit a news network.

Officials representing his administration have been making the rounds for several weeks to press the criticism of Fox. These are not casual, off-the-cuff remarks. These officials are repeatedly criticizing the network.

The purpose of this column is not to defend or criticize Fox. As a reader, if you are taking time to read this blog, I trust that you are capable of coming to your own conclusions about what Fox does. The issue is how upfront the Obama administration is being in its dislike of the network.

However, cloaked in the administration's attacks, there are traces of hypocrisy. Though branding Fox as nothing more than an extension of the Republican Party oversimplifies the issue, this is what they are doing.

The hypocrisy enters this debate when the administration fails to criticize news outlets that are friendly to him who use the same general approach as Fox. For example, MSNBC is unrelentingly supportive of President Obama, and their prime time line up of shows takes the same approach as Fox except they have liberal commentators.

So, apparently, the president does not have a problem with a talk radio approach on television as long as it supports him. In fact, the president is apparently going out of his way to assist MSNBC.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that private briefings are being given to MSNBC commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Olbermann and Maddow are both in MSNBC's prime time schedule and compete directly with Fox shows that are giving the administration the most heartburn.

Again, the hypocrisy here is pretty compelling. The next question is obvious. Why is the administration doing this?

If nothing else, President Obama did not receive a lot of strong criticism leading up to his election last year. Saturday Night Live lampooned this fact last year in a devastating sketch that illustrated how much tougher the press was on Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

Because of this, the president appears ill-prepared for some of the criticism he has been receiving.

He says he doesn't lose sleep over Fox. The reality appears otherwise.