On last week's show, I discussed how President Obama has managed to anger both sides of the aisle with the health care reform process. Pro-Life voters were lashing out at the Senate version, while Pro-Choice groups were upset at efforts to reach out to Congressman Stupak. I wondered aloud how a politician manages to get both sides of the aisle shooting at him. Typically, the easiest answer is the right one, so I supposed that he is just a bad politician, which he is. A story, however, that I heard today makes the issue much clearer.

In its first year, the Obama administration was on track to deport some 400,000 immigrants -- far more than during George W. Bush's last year in office. On the anniversary of Obama's inauguration, Hoy, the Spanish-language newspaper in Chicago, ran a full-page picture of the president on its cover under the headline "Promesa Por Cumplir" ("Unkept Promise"). The sense of betrayal among Latinos -- especially immigrants -- is palpable, just as it was after Obama's 2006 vote on the border fence.

As president, Obama has followed the cerebral strategy that increased enforcement will win support for immigration reform. But if there is no serious progress on the issue, many disillusioned Latinos will stay home in November. Others will decide that because Democrats can't deliver on immigration reform, they might as well vote Republican on the values issues. Depressed Latino turnout in Illinois may well cost the Democrats the Senate seat that Obama once held.

There are so many issues where President Obama has promised one thing and done another that he has literally become his own worst enemy. Understand that when you promise something, it is a logical expectation that people will expect you to at some point deliver on that promise. Hence, in the case of immigration, neither side is happy with the President. Those who support the promised reform expect it and will continue to demand it. Those who oppose it aren't happy that it hasn't happened either, because they are waiting for the other shoe to drop. 

If this were one single issue, perhaps he could get away with it. The problem is that there are far more broken promises than kept ones. Obama was credited with a kept promise on shutting down GITMO when one of his first moves was to issue an executive order to do just that. A year later, however, and the facility not only remains open, but the Administration is openly back to square one, considering holding enemy combatant trials there.  

President Obama promised that he would "use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws." He has not done so, and in fact, his administration has angered the gay community by pushing to dismiss a challenge to the defense of marriage act. 

Are you following the logic here? As liberal commentators complain that President Obama is being painted as a radical by the right, and defend him by saying that the hard left is labeling him a centrist, they fail to fully understand the problem. Yes, he is being fired upon by both sides. Is that fair? Absolutely. Because both sides are still waiting on him to keep his promises. It is hypocritical to use the left's anger at his broken promises to attack the angst on the right that he might actually keep some of them.

The President has wasted a year pushing for health care reform. Will this be another broken promise? That remains to be seen. The general political consensus seems to be that he wins if it passes because he has spent so much time on it that he will never be able to win the support of its opponents. If it fails, he will then lose the support of those who have pushed for this reform. 

Time will tell if that logic is correct or not. What time will never tell is where he might be today if he had focused on what people want, rather than what they don't want. At this point, Obama's political capital is completely spent, and he finds himself sitting in the halls of Congress with a cup, begging for a vote. The one thing that is for sure, there is nothing left to spend on his other unpopular pet projects, like civilian trials for terrorists and further stimulus projects. The fact that he is unlikely to be able to keep the few promises left unbroken is not just reason to criticize those who fear he may do so. 

Congressman Eric Massa (D, NY) has resigned due to allegations of misconduct towards a male staffer. His problems come on the heels of Charlie Rangel's own ethics problems that ousted him from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee. But Congressman Massa isn't exactly going quietly. His comments aimed at members of the Obama Administration are a shocking look into the life of a Washington insider. Some of them can be heard here. Yet if you think that a screaming match between two naked politicians is a funny way to go, stick around to see how Congressman Massa got here in the first place.

The Offense:

A male staffer has accused Congressman Massa of grabbing him and joking about having sexual relations with him at a wedding party in January. Congressman Massa has now admitted to the allegation.  He claims, however, that he is being forced out for a much different reason.

“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill,” he said, “and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill, and now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots.”

“The future of the Democratic Party rests on passing this health care bill,” he continued. “They can get anyone to say anything about me concerning anything at all, and in fact they did.”

The White House is dismissing these claims as "ridiculous", but a look at the unequal treatment of the two offending parties listed here would make one second guess that position.  Charlie Rangel, who faces more serious allegations of tax evasion and accepting illegal gifts, has to resign his chairmanship yet sticks around to vote on health care. Massa is forced to leave. Parroting the White House line is a reuters article.

Massa's departure brings the number of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives to 253, with 178 Republicans.

His departure is not likely to have a big impact on Pelosi's ability to round up votes to get a final healthcare overhaul bill to President Barack Obama.

Massa voted against the bill that passed the House in November in a close vote. Four vacancies bring the number of House members to 431, which means 216 votes will be needed to pass the sweeping healthcare overhaul.

Yet perhaps the most amusing part of this story is Congressman Massa's description of an encounter with Rham Emanuel.

"I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't gonna vote for the president's budget," Massa said. "Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man? ... It's ridiculous."

Boy, President Obama, you sure know how to pick them. Yet, even with this news, it seems that Eric Massa is leaving Washington D.C. in a slightly less ridiculous way than the way in which he arrived. How does one top rumors of same sex sexual harassment and two elected officials arguing politics naked in the shower, you ask? As always, I deliver.

It seems that Congressman Massa wanted to make a big splash with the environmental community when he headed off to D.C. to start his now abbreviated freshman term in Congress. And what better way to do that then in a hydrogen powered car. His idea hit a few speed bumps, but Massa was up to the challenge.

Massa, now faced with a problem he could understand and wrap his brain around, decided that the best way to make sure the second car would appear when he needed it was … wait for it … TO TOW A SECOND FUEL-CELL CAR BEHIND A FULL-SIZE SUV! (!!?)

Problem solved!

All Massa had to do now was get the second fuel-cell car back home to New York.  What he needed, then, was … wait for it … w a i t f o r i t … A SECOND FULL-SIZE SUV!

That’s a fuel-cell powered car driving approximately half the distance from NY to DC, followed by a full-size SUV towing a second fuel-cell powered car, and a second full-size SUV to tow the second fuel-cell powered car back home.

SO, that small fleet of 3 vehicles (with 1 in tow) drove 200 miles each under their own power (600 total driven miles), then one of them drove 200 miles back (800 total driven miles).  The second car drove 100 miles under its own power, followed by the second SUV (1000 total driven miles), then the second SUV drove back to NY (300 more miles, for 1,300 driven miles), which means this caravan of four (4!) vehicles traveled approximately thirteen-hundred (1,300!) total miles to deliver one (1!) freshman congressman from New York to Washington DC.

Why does anyone take these people seriously? Here we have a President and a Congressman, both alleged environmentalists, who upon winning office, create more pollution than their predecessors, and are all the while lauded for their environmental efforts. President Obama immediately beefed up to "the most monstrous presidential limo yet". And who can forget his 800 mile pizza delivery? It seems that, if nothing else, these two have their own hypocrisy in common. 

I know that I have already covered Michelle Obama's appearance on the Mike Huckabee show, but there was something more that I got out of that speech that has been playing around in my mind all week. I believe that one statement from Michelle on that show is perhaps the most crucial point to understanding who these people are and how they think. Once one understands this statement, it is easy to wrap your mind around where they are coming from.

 OBAMA: But I try to stay away from, you know, news because, you know, I want to formulate my opinions based on experiences that I have.

Now I'm sure many liberals out there probably found this to be a deep and profound statement.  I personally found this to be perhaps the most anti-intellectual and self absorbed statement I had heard in quite some time. In order for me to explain this, let's look at an example of this logic in action with the Obamas. Many of you will remember the controversy surrounding William Ayers. Let's look at this case using the world view of Michelle Obama vs. the views of many who watch the news.

Personal Experiences

To President and Michelle Obama, William Ayers is an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His wife, Bernadine Dohrn, is a law professor at Northwestern. Their relationship with the Obama's is detailed in a Chicago Sun Times article.

In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign. Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at occasional dinners the group hosted.

In addition, Ayers and Obama interacted occasionally in their roles with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a not-for-profit group charged with spending tens of millions of dollars it obtained through its affiliation with a school-improvement foundation created by late Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg. Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge's board of directors. Ayers served on the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, which made recommendations to the board on which organizations should get grants. The groups worked on school-reform efforts between 1995 and 2000.

Based on these personal experiences, one could paint a very nice picture of Bill Ayers. He is an educated man who is involved in charity. He teaches and writes textbooks. He has been very nice to the Obama's, donating money to Barack's campaign, and hosting a meet-and-greet to introduce Obama to politically connected individuals at the start of his political career.

But this opinion requires one to ignore the news. You see, following the news accounts of William Ayers's life paints a much different picture.

Ayers In The News

William Ayers was interviewed on September 11th, 2001 by the New York Times about his youth. Here is a part of the resulting piece.

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.

Now he has written a book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September). Mr. Ayers, who is 56, calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction. He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it.

That's a much different picture than the one painted by the personal experiences of Michelle Obama.  I'm sure that her experiences with Ayers also exclude the following quote.

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at"

President Obama has also expressed a desire to opt for his personal experiences with Mr. Ayers rather than allowing his judgment to be altered by factual historical accounts. 

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.

Canada, on the other hand, decided that when it comes to entering their country, the news is a bit more important than ones personal experiences.

 An American education professor, one of the founders of a radical 1960s group known as the Weather Underground, which was responsible for a number of bombings in the United States in the early 1970s, was turned back at the Canadian border last night.

Yet the fact that the terrorist activities of a man so closely linked to the first family left him denied entry into Canada should not be the real focal point here.  As disturbing as it is, it pales in comparison to the more recent implications of the Obama world view.

Holder, in a letter to Grassley, admitted that nine of the agency's appointees had done some kind of work on behalf of terror suspects.

"To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees," said Holder in the letter, which is dated Feb. 18.

"Four others either contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases or were otherwise involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees."

Holder refused to reveal the names of any of the DOJ lawyers who worked on behalf of terrorists or their positions in the department, except for two officials whose advocacy for Gitmo detainees had already been reported.

Neal Katyal, the department's principal deputy solicitor general, was once the lawyer for Osama bin Laden's driver. Jennifer Daskal, part of Obama's Detention Policy Task Force, advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch.

During the campaign, I made my own video ad about this situation. How on the money was that commentary? You see, it wasn't my suggestion that President Obama would try to make William Ayers the head of the Department of Homeland Security. I never suggested that the he would make Jeremiah Wright the White House Chaplain. My concern was the poor judgment shown by these associations. I must, however, admit that even I didn't imagine that this judgment was so bad as to result in the lawyer for Osama Bin Laden's driver receiving a position in the justice department. But then again, looking at the statement of the First Lady, it all makes a little sense, doesn't it?

When one's personal experiences with terrorists are family, friends, dinners, and charities, and one chooses to ignore the news accounts of crashed planes, dead bodies, and collapsing buildings, I guess the terrorists don't seem all that bad. Rather empathetic, huh? I suppose for the terrorists it is. But where is the empathy with the victims?

I understand that lawyers have to work, and even the worst members of our society need representation. That's just how it is. But there is no law stating that, especially in a time of war, the lawyers for our enemies must serve in the justice department. It is rather the failed word view of President and Michelle Obama that cause such dilemma's.  Be it the 60's radical who attacked us, or the lawyer for the Islamic extremist that brought us down, it all comes back to one thing.

 OBAMA: But I try to stay away from, you know, news because, you know, I want to formulate my opinions based on experiences that I have.

I didn't know that the First Lady was scheduled to appear on Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News last Sunday Night, so I was shocked to tune in on my Sirius Radio and hear her voice on the hated Conservative network. Once I got my jaw picked up off of the floor, I decided to give a listen to what she had to say. I have previously mocked her obesity initiative on the show by calling it a "Twinkie Tour" but I figured, what the heck, let's give it a fair shot. Guess what? Yea, it's even worse than I thought. You can check the entire transcript here, I will be referencing it throughout this article.

Government Takeover Or No?

My concern with this type of initiative is always that it will be an excuse for the Government to get more involved in our daily lives. This came up in the interview, and here is what Michelle had to say.

We have the solutions in our hand, but it takes a coordinated effort. It’s going to take all of us. Government, business, our coaches, our teachers, parents all working together. So, my hope is that I can be one components in helping to pull that cohort together.

So there we have it. Government is going to have to get involved and step in and kick twinkies out of fat kids mouths. Right?

Well, this is the one thing that this initiative isn’t. Because I’ve spoken to a lot of experts about this issue, and the one thing that they haven’t said is that government telling people what to do is the answer. This is not government intervention.

Okay, check that. This is a relief. No Government intervention, right?

But it's also what's going on in our schools, cause most of our kids get the majority of their calories that they eat in school. So we have an opportunity to work with the federal government and the school lunch providers to figure out how do we make those meals healthier. You know, how do we take out fat, sugar and salt and put in more fruit vegetables and whole grains.

Wait a second, so it is Government intervention? Work with me here.

So the point is, if we can do that in Philly and we can do that in Pennsylvania, cause they're implementing this all throughout the state, then perhaps this is a model that we can look at for the rest of the country. So Let's Move, a piece of that is creating a healthy food-financing initiative, investing $400 million to try and leverage some additional resources for states and communities that want to replicate that. So it's giving governors and mayors some support to figure out how do we attract more grocery stores here, how do we change the mindset, because it's really not about what our kids eat, it's also about what their communities are like. You know, you can't live in a community that doesn't have food in it, right? I mean, that's basic -- the basic foundation.

Were we on yes or no? I don't remember, so let's do this one instead. Childhood obesity isn't about what kids eat? It's about what their communities are like? So basically, I could eat right and exercise and still be fat because I live in the wrong neighborhood? Where the heck are these kids living, in ginger bread houses? Are calories literally falling off the walls and being absorbed through their pores while they are sleeping?

The Problem

Well, if what the kids weight isn't about what they eat, and it's actually the fault of the community they live in, then I guess we need a new definition of the problem. Can I get my explanation with a cute little liberal code word please? Our First Lady graciously obliged.

There are 23.5 million Americans who live in food deserts, and this isn't just in urban communities...

 Food Desert? She went on...

This is areas where there are absolute -- there's no access to a grocery store. So there are places, like in the communities that we visited in Philadelphia, they hadn't had a grocery store in their community in a decade.

All right, you think about a decade of a community. So that means that if a mom in that area wanted to make a salad for their kid -- right? -- even if she was geared up to do it, that means she would have to get in a cab, take a bus, get on a train to get to a grocery store to do that. And you're just sort of -- think of families that are busy, they don't have resources, they just don't do it.

Now I don't want to call Michelle an elitist or anything, but yes you read that right. "Oh my God! Can you believe that there are people who actually have to use some type of transportation to get to some sort of a gathering place where they can get food products? They don't have people to run their errands for them? How horrible! Do they even have to cook it themselves? No full time staff to make sure their is food on their plate sitting on their table? Oh, the humanity!"

 Am I over-reacting? Here is how wikipedia defines a "food desert".

A food desert is a district with little or no access to foods needed to maintain a healthy diet but often served by plenty of fast food restaurants.

The concept of 'access' may be interpreted in three ways.

• 'Physical access' to shops can be difficult if the shops are distant, the shopper is elderly or infirm, the area has many hills, public transport links are poor, and the consumer has no car. Also, the shop may be across a busy road, difficult to cross with children or with underpasses that some fear to use because of a crime risk. For some, such as the disabled, the inside of the shop may be hard to access physically if there are steps up or the interior is cramped with no room for walking aids. Carrying fresh food home may also be hard for some.

• 'Financial access' is difficult if the consumer lacks the money to buy healthy foods (generally more expensive, calorie for calorie, than less healthy, sugary, and fatty 'junk foods') or if the shopper cannot afford the bus fare to remote shops selling fresh foods and instead uses local fast food outlets. Other forms of financial access barriers may be inability to afford storage space for food, or for the very poor, living in temporary accommodation that does not offer good cooking facilities.

• Mental attitude or food knowledge of the consumer may prevent them accessing fresh vegetables. They may lack cooking knowledge or have the idea that eating a healthy diet isn't important.

Yes, a food desert is a place where people say "I would like to eat healthy, but there is a hill between here and the grocery store, so I'm eating McDonalds instead. I don't want to have to cross a busy street or anything". Oh, and let me not leave this guy out. "So you say I'm getting fat because I eat an 8 piece family meal from KFC every night, and I consider gravy to be a soft drink? I had no idea that a healthy diet was important. Here all this time I thought I was fat because I was living in a ginger bread house."

FOX News With The Tough Questions

HUCKABEE: They want to know, how do you have such wonderfully toned arms.

OBAMA: So if you want to know how I got my arms, it's because, you know, I'm in the gym.

HUCKABEE: I'm going to pass that on, because that was what they all wanted to know.

OBAMA: Right.

HUCKABEE: And I think you've made the good point, too, that it's a combination of nutrition and exercise.

OBAMA: Yes.

Damn. I had five bucks on the community she lived in giving her great arms. 

Are you kidding me here? Nobody at FOX has any ideas on how one could tone their arms? Yea, make sure you pass that info along Mike. They are going to be so shocked when they hear it. By the way, did you have to promise to only throw softball questions out there, or were you being serious, Mike?

Inside Stuff

Ever wonder why the President seems to be so clueless about how bad his poll numbers drop every time he gets back on the health care wagon?

But I try to stay away from, you know, news because, you know, I want to formulate my opinions based on experiences that I have. So, you know, I'll read clips. You know, I get headlines. But I tend and I try to keep home kind of a news-free zone.

What an insight into the mind of a liberal. "I try to stay away from the news because I would hate for my opinions to be influenced by facts or information and stuff. I'd rather see the whole world through the lens of my personal experiences." Wait, isn't that supposed to be the criticism of the global warming deniers? "It snowed here, so there's no global warming". Isn't that what Obama said? It turns out it's not the other side who does that, it's his wife. She went on...

You know it's sort of like, when you work above the shop, you can't just bring work home.

With all due respect, isn't that why the Oval Office is in the White House?  Isn't the President kinda supposed to be President 24 hours a day? No wonder they stayed in Hawaii for their full vacation after the Christmas Day terrorist attack. We're lucky he didn't stay in the White House for his vacation, or he wouldn't have even known it had happened over there in the "No News Zone".

You Know?

And it's a really cool country with some really great people all over the place. You know, I mean, it still brings tears to my eyes because we don't often get to do that as Americans. We don't get to campaign and have to go to Iowa and then to Montana and then over to you know, but you're forced in a very good way to do that. And when you do that, you see the true America. And it's decent, and it's kind and it's hopeful and it's critical, right, and it's demanding, but it's courageous. It's not cowardly in that way.

And that's the truth that, you know, I hold on to. And that's the truth that I teach my children, you know. It's part of dad's job, you know.

He's doing a big thing. There will be people who won't agree with him, you know, that's life, you know? People won't agree with you, you know.

So just, you know, know that, you know, I teach my kids to keep moving forward, know what's in their heart and, you know, stay true. And it's that faith, you know, that really keeps you going.

So she cries because Americans don't get to campaign very often and go to Iowa and Montana and... what, did she run out of State's there? Could she not come up with the name of one of the other 55 (it's a joke, Peggy Joseph) States?

I'm not really sure what she's trying to say there, you know? If anyone else can make sense of it, you know, feel free to explain it in my comments, you know? That would help me out, you know? For the show, you know?

I thought she was supposed to be the smarter of the two. I guess we really are screwed.