While Gallup notes:

U.S. presidents rarely see a spike in public support after their delivery of State of the Union addresses. Since 1978, Gallup has measured only four instances when a president’s approval rating increased by at least four percentage points after a State of the Union address, with Bill Clinton the president in three of these instances and George W. Bush in the other.

While that’s true, I couldn’t help but notice that in 1995 (after the Republican Revolution in 1994), with a pre-speech approval rating 47%, President Bill Clinton saw a post-speech bump of 2%.

The question is, however, was Obama’s speech better than Clinton’s? I’m not so sure, but it’ll be interesting to see later this week how the American people responded.

What do you think? Share your comments below.

Graphic: Approval Ratings Pre- and Post-State of the Union, Presidents from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush

So it came to pass that Barack Obama gave a pretty decent speech on the occasion of his acceptance of a Nobel Peace Prize awarded for what one presumes is possible future action. Much printer ink has been spilt on the vagaries of how such an unaccomplished man (at least at the point he was nominated in late January) won such a prestigious honor and I am not going to rehash it here. Rather, in focusing on Obama’s remarks we see a man that actually admits the necessity for war. Obama, waxing on the imperfections of man, states that in some instances, it behooves the good people of the Earth to destroy those forces of evil that seek to enslave and terrorize the innocent. Needless to say, it was a welcome change of pace from his continual bashing of the US insofar as he also recognized the need for the US to step in and fight evil from time to time (presumably when it is not tyrannizing Native Americans and African Americans).

Obama further counseled that the US must use its great power wisely, and that though we do have the power to obliterate, we should guard against such wanton use of power ensconced in blatant moral chauvinism. We are not always right, and I suppose we shouldn’t always act as if our proverbial shit doesn’t stink.

As leaders of the free world, it is incumbent upon us to actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Why on Earth the Bush administration never fully disavowed torture is beyond me. It is common sense that leaders set an example. Why should others follow us when we can’t even forgo a practice that is abhorrent, vile and mostly ineffective? Even from a RealPolitik standpoint it is much wiser to assert a no-torture policy and lie about it than spend years denying water-boarding is torture (it is).

So what does this all mean? Has Obama actually turned the corner and come down from the heights of cloud cuckoo land? Or should we take the more cynical approach and snidely remark that he was simply trying to throw starch into his poorly received, and defeatist speech given at West Point? Who really knows at present.

So, like Josey Wales, our beloved Dear One gave the world our words of life and our words of death. But will those words, like his vacuous promises of Hope and Change, ring hollow by his lack of action?

One of my favorite heroes of the Second World War was Winston Churchill. Any British school child could tell you that Churchill faced the nearly impossible task of keeping the morale of his people high in a time of great privation. England alone stood against Germany and was rewarded by daily and nightly air raids. Everywhere he went the often grumpy, embattled, and always witty (and not sober) Prime Minister gave hope to his battered and bombed-out people by the mere act of holding up his right hand, palm out, index and middle fingers spread apart signifying a V; a V for Victory. This simple act bespoke a truth that every war-weary Brit knew to his core. Ole Winnie would never, ever, settle for anything less than total Victory over a hated and tyrannical foe. Churchill’s simple act of defiance against the all-powerful field-grey legions of Hitler’s Wehrmacht gave reason for the conquered peoples of Europe to continue the fight against the Nazi invader. Resistance groups across the Continent splashed alley walls and city squares with giant painted Vs. V became more than a letter, it became a promise that one day Europe would once again breathe the fresh air of freedom that an Allied Victory would bring.

Flash forward more than 60 years later. America finds itself at war with a foe just as tyrannical and vile as the Nazis. Like the generation that has been labeled the “greatest,” the youth of today have also sent many of their best and brightest to fight in the wastes of Iraq and the forbidding mountains of Afghanistan. Like our illustrious predecessors, we too have endured death and lamented the loss of many brilliant, beautiful and promising young lives. But unlike the struggle 60 years hence, America is divided in its counsel, and, I dare say, not committed to Victory; an omission that clouds the sacrifice of those who have fallen. Nothing manifests this truly tragic state of affairs than the actions of our putative Commander-in-Chief.

In his speech at West Point, President Obama promised to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan by 30,000. He spoke at great length of the necessity of increasing the strength of the Afghan Army as well as holding Pakistan accountable for its lapses in judgment where the Taliban is concerned. Obama further outlined his disastrous decision to impose an impossible timeline for withdrawal of said US troops in what can only be considered an abject admission of the US’ lack of interest and commitment toward a successful conclusion to the fight in Afghanistan. Finally, Obama failed to mention, in his 4300 plus words, one: Victory.

Why is Victory important? How is it that a single word can change the entire complexion of a war involving hundreds of thousands? It is quite simple. Victory is a commitment to win. Victory is a covenant to put tyranny in its place. Victory gives comfort to those who have lost their loved ones and validates the ultimate sacrifice that so many willingly undertook. Victory sends a message to our friends and foes alike that we are in the fight to the end and that we will stop at nothing. Anything less is a stab in the back of those in the armed forces fighting, and dying, to bring this war to a successful conclusion.

One marvels at the absurdity of a war-time president that is not committed to Victory. After all, who gets in a fight to lose? No doubt defenders of the President will be quick to point out that he did not get us into Afghanistan, nor did he mismanage the war prior to his election in 2008. What those people fail to realize is that it IS Obama’s responsibility to finish the fight and to secure a successful, and Victorious conclusion. As the Dear One pointed out in his historic run for president, “Afghanistan is a war of necessity.” I would think, by implication, that wars of “necessity” should generally be wars that are won and not cast aside when they become politically inconvenient (say, for example, in late 2011 prior to his re-election bid…).

Can real Victory be achieved in Afghanistan? Certainly “winning” in the Kush is not the signing of a surrender document on the deck of a battleship, nor is it a negotiated armistice in Paris. In the War on Terror there are no armies to crush or a capital to take. As such, we need to s trive for a species of Victory. What we can expect is an Afghanistan where the people are allowed to choose their destinies without the interference of tyrants and where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are broken, discredited and irrelevant entities. Any species of Victory is far more preferable to no Victory at all.

So on one hand we have a leader who despises the word Victory and on the other the man who imposes a ludicrous timeline on a surge to nowhere. Are these the actions of a man, and a government, that is committed to winning? Or are they the actions of a man attempting to placate both the anti-war wing of his party and those who still believe that the US must, by necessity, win this war?

What contempt does history have for those peoples who deign to defend themselves? What disdain will future generations of Americans have for us when they read our chapter in their history books? Those who fight wars to lose, by implication abdicating all responsibility of their own defense, deserve to be relegated to the scrap heap of history.

In the end it boils down to a single word. Some, mostly those who have never sacrificed one iota for this nation, dismiss Obama’s glaring omission by claiming that the word Victory in itself is unimportant, nothing more than a jingoistic expression of the prior imperialistic and chauvinistic administration. I think Winston Churchill and hundreds of millions of free people in Europe, to say nothing of posterity, would humbly and forcefully disagree.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
November 14, 2009

This was a week for honoring the extraordinary service and profound sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

Every fall, we set aside a special day to pay tribute to our veterans. But this year, Veteran’s Day took on even greater poignancy and meaning because of the tragic events at Fort Hood.

On Tuesday, I traveled there to join with the Fort Hood community, the Army, and the friends and families of the victims to honor thirteen of our fellow Americans who died – and the dozens more who were wounded – not on some distant shore, but on a military base at home.

Every man and woman who signs up for military service does so with full knowledge of the dangers that could come – that is part of what makes the service of our troops and veterans so extraordinary. But it’s unthinkable that so many would die in a hail of gunfire on a US Army base in the heart of Texas, and that a fellow service-member could have pulled trigger.

There is an ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy. That investigation will look at the motives of the alleged gunman, including his views and contacts.  As I said in Fort Hood, I am confident that justice will be done, and I will insist that the full story be told. That is paramount, and I won’t compromise that investigation today by discussing the details of this case. But given the potential warning signs that may have been known prior these shootings, we must uncover what steps – if any – could have been taken to avert this tragedy.

On the Thursday evening that this tragedy took place, I met in the Oval Office with Secretary of Defense Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – Admiral Mullen, and FBI Director Mueller to review the immediate steps that were necessary to support the families and secure Fort Hood. The next morning, I met with the leadership of our military and the intelligence community, and ordered them to undertake a full review of the sequence of events that led up to the shootings.

The purpose of this review is clear: We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information. Once we have those facts, we must act upon them. If there was a failure to take appropriate action before the shootings, there must be accountability. Beyond that – and most importantly – we must quickly and thoroughly evaluate and address any flaws in the system, so that we can prevent a similar breach from happening again. Our government must be able to act swiftly and surely when it has threatening information. And our troops must have the security that they deserve.

I know there will also be inquiries by Congress, and there should.  But all of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington. The stakes are far too high.

Of all the responsibilities of the presidency, the one that I weigh most heavily is my duty as Commander-in-Chief to our splendid service-men and women. Their character and bravery were on full display in that processing center at Fort Hood, when so many scrambled under fire to help their wounded comrades. And their great dignity and decency has been on display in the days since, as the Fort Hood community has rallied together.

We owe our troops prayerful, considered decisions about when and where we commit them to battle to protect our security and freedom, and we must fully support them when they are deployed. We also owe them the absolute assurance that they’ll be safe here at home as they prepare for whatever mission may come. As Commander-in-Chief, I won’t settle for anything less.

This nation will never forget the service of those we lost at Fort Hood, just as we will always honor the service of all who wear the uniform of the United States of America. Their legacy will be an America that is safer and stronger – an America that reflects the extraordinary character of the men and women who serve it.

Thank you.

It’s good to hear about something other than health care, but I’m sure that’s what will be covered next week, as it looks like Congress isn’t going to meet his deadline.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I had always suspected that Obama was going to be a weak leader, but two recent events sealed it for me. First off, the President of France, the irascible Nikolas Sarkozy, opened his big Gallic mouth and quite bluntly called Obama weak and indecisive . Privately, Sarkozy and other European leaders are beginning to rethink their enthusiasm for Change and Hope. How bad must things be if the French are calling us weak? When was the last time that happened? 1979?

If the musings of a wine addled sex-addict were not enough damming evidence on the present state of our affairs than I offer a personal anecdote. As some of you may know, I often take hot baths to help cure mild illnesses like a cold. I caught a cold whilst in Miami, no doubt from the dirty, wretched and unsanitary strippers found at Club Madonna.

While taking the waters, I was reading a book on Afghanistan as it is likely that I will be following in the footsteps of thousands of soldiers who over the millennia attempted to further the interests of their leaders, whether it be Alexander or the ultimate sex-machine Benjamin Disraeli. Naturally, as most of those who came before me came to great grief in the forbidding defiles of that thoroughly undesirable land, I wanted to know as much as possible about the place, in particular how the more recent Soviet failure. I found more interesting, however, how exactly the Soviets came to invade in the first place.

The long and short of it is that the Soviet leadership, headed by former Haggar slacks model, Leonid Brezhnev, were encouraged by Jimmy Carter’s impotence and proven weakness. Stephen Tanner, author of “Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the Fall of the Taliban” writes on the Politburo’s decision to execute the invasion:

Coupled with US’ continued inability to rescue its hostages in Tehran, and the lack of a reaction to the murder of the US ambassador in Kabul at the hands of extremists, the Soviet leadership saw the writing on the wall and were emboldened by Carter’s indecisiveness and apparent unwillingness to use force at any cost.

So, if one considers what occurred the last time the US presented itself as a soft and malleable power, it might be a good idea to slow the pace of Change and Hope. Following Obama’s tour of self-loathing Change of Europe (where they laughed at his pleas for more troops in Afghanistan), the Middle East (he didn’t bow, he really didn’t!) and South America (we are to blame for everything shitty about your shitty countries), it is a wonder that Russia hasn’t invaded the Ukraine, Pakistan hasn’t fallen to the Taliban (yet) and North Korea hasn’t produced a horrible remake of Gone With the Wind with Kim Jong Il as Scarlett O’Hara.

So lets hope that the Wunderkind of Hope tones his hatred of America down a little bit the next time he goes overseas. Pouring blood in the diplomatic waters is one sure way of attracting predators and some of us would rather not follow in the footsteps of the Greeks, Parthians, Bactrians, Scythians, Arabs, Chinese, Moguls, British and Soviets and have our heads paraded through the streets of Kabul on pikes.

There have been many on the left who have been diligently trying to discredit the rapidly growing Tea Party Movement as nothing more than a few angry activists.

Well, I guess in terms of web traffic, these few angry activists are more energized than the ever-so-famous Barack Obama army.

What this link shows is the increase in traffic rank, as calculated by Alexa.com.

Of course, any computer geek will quickly rush in and discredit Alexa’s ranking system. However, if you look at some of the other metrics presented here, TaxDayTeaParty.com comes up strong in every category, bringing to question the real power of the post-election Obama machine.

For those of you who don’t follow this stuff regularly and may be confused, let me just walk you through the more important metrics.

While traffic rank is an interesting number to follow, most techies are more concerned with things like pageviews, as shown on the “pageview” tab here.

Now Alexa doesn’t provide you with the exact number pageviews, but instead displays the data as a percentage of overall online activity.

Even so, TaxDayTeaParty.com comes out strong again.

Using another metric, bounce rate, you can easily see how engaging a particular website is. Basically, bounce rate represents nothing more than a percentage of people who come to a certain page on a site and then leave without clicking to other internal links. This metric is important because if a site has content that isn’t relevant or interesting, they’ll leave.

Looking at the two sties, TaxDayTeaParty.com wins another round. Since this metric is based on a percentage of those who exit the site, it’s better to have a lower a number, which TaxDayTeaParty.com does, with a bounce rate of around 35% versus Obama’s 45%.

Yet they’re still trying to discredit this movement?

While I could easily stop there, I might as well finish this out by examining the “Time on Site” numbers.

This metric is self explanatory, it represents the average amount of time visitors spend browsing a particular website. If you’re a web developer, this is an important metric because the time spent on site will often reflect the quality of your sites content, structure, and interactivity.

So looking at the two sites, once again TaxDayTeaParty.com is the victor, with an average time on site of just under 3 minutes, versus Obama’s, which is right around 1 minute and 30 seconds.

While it’s easy to understand why TaxDayTeaParty.com is doing better than the Obama site at present, it’s important to note that in the weeks following the election, everyone was worried about what Obama was going to do with his “massive grassroots army.”

While he may still have a massive email list and a flashy website, in terms of measured attention, it looks like it’s become a model that can be (and is being) replicated by other organizations and movements successfully.

Just for kicks, here is how TaxDayTeaParty.com does against other sites:

TaxDayTeaParty.com vs. MoveOn.org

Winner: TaxDayTeaParty.com

TaxDayTeaParty.com vs. Democrats.org

Winner: TaxDayTeaParty.com

TaxDayTeaParty.com vs. DailyKos.com

Winner: DailyKos.com (for now)

Yes, alas, it’s Obama’s new dog.

From Sunday’s Washington Post.

The little guy is a 6-month-old Portuguese water dog given to the Obama girls as a gift by that Portuguese water dog-lovin’ senator himself, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. The girls named it Bo — and let it be noted that you learned that here first. Malia and Sasha chose the name, because their cousins have a cat named Bo and because first lady Michelle Obama’s father was nicknamed Diddley, a source said. (Get it? Bo . . . Diddley?)

Bo? I guess it could be worse.

My guesses for some other names that were probably considered, but couldn’t make the cut:

• Messiah
• Rush
• Maverick
• Rummy
• Turbo (Tim Geithner’s Pick)
• Blago
• Murdock
• Mary Jane
• Gimmick (this had to be the close second)

Are there any others that I’ve missed?

Click here to view the embedded video.

What do you think a Socialist America would look like?

Click here to view the embedded video.

From Rides Magazine:

Were the t-shirt, button and decorative plate not enough for you? Well if you live in Illinois and operate a fully registered vehicle, now’s your chance to Ba-rock an official (albeit temporary) Obama license plate. Proceeds from the sale of the license plates (which can be purchased at the Chicago Auto Show this week) benefit the Illinois Library Association.

The tags are valid between February 17 and April 17, 2009. After that, expect to see them garnering even more change on ebay.

I guess the Volvo full of bumper stickers isn’t enough for some people.