It seemed like big news at first blush.
When White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe went on four Sunday morning talk programs, it sounded like he was announcing President Barack Obama would finally produce a plan to rein in the deficit.
That’s what The New York Times headline writers thought they heard, leading them to splash “Obama to call for Broad Plan to Reduce Debt” across Monday’s front page, while MSNBC’s website proclaimed “Obama to lay out spending plan" and CBS News' site said “Obama to Outline Deficit Plan.”
For if you parse Mr. Plouffe’s comment, it sounds like Mr. Obama will spell out deficit-cutting targets, not a plan. By saying the president will deal with what Mr. Plouffe called “the scale of debt reduction,” it appears Mr. Obama’s speech will be heavy on goals and light on proposals.
If so, it will be another missed opportunity, one with grave consequences for the nation’s prosperity. For Mr. Obama will again have set a lofty goal (like doubling U.S. exports or cutting dependence on foreign oil) without spelling out how to achieve it.
The nation saw Mr. Obama’s lack of leadership in his State of the Union address, where he glossed over the government’s grave financial situation with a few platitudes, a bow to the efforts of his own deficit reduction commission, and an air kiss to the Congress to accompany his best wishes in it finding an answer.
If Mr. Obama offers only goals and not plans Wednesday, his presidency may have entered the final phase of shedding any pretence of seriousness. It will be evidence that Mr. Plouffe and other West Wing politicos have decided to stall on any real action to reduce the deficit until after the 2012 election.
Of course, Mr. Plouffe did make clear the president will call for repeal of the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthy."
Though Mr. Obama heralded the agreement last December to continue all the Bush tax cuts for the next two years, the poll-obsessed campaign operatives in the White House think class warfare and blaming the nation’s ills on greedy rich people will win Mr. Obama reelection.
An early March poll by Resurgent Republic found 38% of Americans agree “we need more tax revenue as well as spending cuts to reduce the federal deficit” while 54% believed the “federal deficit is a result of too much spending in Washington” and if “the Congress raises taxes, the tax increases will only end up going” for more spending, not deficit reduction. A Pew Research Center poll mid-March found 61% favored “lowering domestic spending…to reduce the budget deficit” while 30% opposed it. On the other hand, only 30% favored “raising taxes…to reduce the budget deficit” while 67% opposing tax increases.
Mr. Plouffe and his cohort of campaigners may believe -- as Al Gore, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale before them – that class warfare is a winning message in a bid for the White House. But that’s unlikely in the coming campaign. The American people believe the government has a spending problem, not a revenue one. And voters believe there should be a limit to what government takes from anyone or any business in taxes, because if government can take it from some, it can take if from everyone.
If there are details Wednesday, then Mr. Obama is serious. If he merely offers goals, it will be yet another political speech by a president who loves campaigning but not leading or governing.
This article originally appeared on FoxNews.com on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.
It didn’t start out well: the 47% of Americans who approved last week of the U.S. air strikes in Libya ordered by President Obama is lower than for any other military action since WWII, according to a new Pew poll.
By comparison, here are the percentages of Americans who approved of U.S. military action in other post-WWII conflicts:
49% - Lebanon (1982)
51% - Kosovo (1999)
53% - Grenada (1983)
54% - Haiti (1994)
65% - Somalia (1993)
66% - Sudan (1998)
71% - Libya (1986)
75% - Korea (1950)
76% - Iraq (1991)
76% - Iraq (2003)
80% - Panama (1989)
83% - Iraq (1993)
90% - Afghanistan (2001)
The Pew poll gave a sense why the public may be uneasy—just 39% believe the U.S. and its allies have a clear goal in Libya, 60% think military action is likely to last for some time, and voters are split 46%-43% on whether the U.S. and its allies should remove Qaddafi from power or only protect civilians.
Then there’s a problem a thoughtful Bush administration colleague, experienced in foreign affairs, raised to me recently. Mr. Obama has transferred command of the operation from the American military to NATO. And while the NATO’s Supreme Commander (SACEUR) is a U.S. admiral, he receives guidance from the North Atlantic Council (NAC), composed of NATO members.
As my former colleague pointed out:
“Anyone on the Council can raise an objection about the conduct of the operation and they have a history of wading into the weeds. This was why the French walked out of the NATO discussions. They were afraid (reasonably) that moving the operation into NATO would result in watered down-rules of engagement and unwieldy decision-making. This process is even slightly more complicated because NATO set up a ‘NAC-Plus’ arrangement for Libya that includes Arab countries.
“To get agreement on the NATO handover, members papered over a lot of issues, and…we may end up seeing some messy debates in the NAC that impact the operation. It's a little surprising that Turkey hasn’t objected already.
“There is…an element of multilateralism run amok here. One of the usual arguments for pursuing an operation through NATO is that it makes it easier for Europeans to participate. But here one of our major European partners objected and [the decision-making structure] may prolong the operation if it ties SACEUR's hands.”
Indeed, this rickety leadership structure my former associate warns about may have caused NATO to engage in a moral equivalency, admonishing the Libyan rebels not to attack civilians with language similar to the words earlier aimed at Col. Qaddafi and his regime. But the rebels had not made the same barbarous threats as Col. Qaddafi, who, referring to them as “rats and dogs,” said, "We are coming tonight...we will find you in your closets…we will have no mercy and no pity."
It is unlikely that the last week of newspaper headlines and TV news reports trumpeting that Qaddafi’s troops are on the move and the rebels retreating will strengthen American support for Mr. Obama’s decision. Only Qaddafi’s defeat, surrender or death in an allied strike would likely increase public approval of the Libyan operation.
For those of us who supported Mr. Obama’s decision, we would hope the White House would give their communications efforts on Libya a fraction of the attention they have lavished on this week’s announcement that Mr. Obama is now an official candidate for president.
This article originally appeared on FoxNews.com on Monday, April 4, 2011.
Mr. Obama’s performance in his televised speech to the country about his Libyan policy Monday night was in some ways reminiscent of the actor Frank Morgan’s portrayal of Professor Marvel in the classic film, “The Wizard of Oz.”
When Mr. Obama insisted the role of Americas will be extremely limited and quickly recede into virtual nothingness, it sounded like the Wizard’s palace guard (that is to say, himself) when he insists, “Orders are, nobody can see the Great Oz, not nobody, not no how...NOT NOBODY, NOT NO HOW!”
When Mr. Obama excoriated Col. Muammar Qaddafi, he seemed like the Wizard’s projection of a fiery giant head when he berated the Tin Man as “you clinking, clanking, clattering collection of collagenous junk!”
When Mr. Obama talked about consulting with allies, he sounded like the Wizard standing in that hot-air balloon emblazoned with “State Fair Omaha,” telling the people of Oz he was embarking on “a hazardous and technically unexplainable journey into the outer stratosphere to confer, converse, and otherwise hobnob with my brother wizards.”
Then there was the Wizard’s plaintive cry when his balloon accidentally rose and Dorothy begged not to be left behind: “I don't know how it works!” Apparently Mr. Obama doesn’t either. Only it is not a balloon’s operation, but our nation’s leadership of the world that the president doesn’t understand.
The Professor makes his appearance early in the movie when, as Dorothy flees home and a storm approaches, she stumbles on his carnival wagon. Painted on its side is a legend apropos of Mr. Obama: “Professor Marvel: Acclaimed by The Crowned Heads of Europe.” Underneath it reads, “Also Juggling And Sleight of Hand.”
More juggling and sleight of hand by Mr. Obama in his speeches will simply diminish America’s credibility in the world.
Let us hope good things happen in Libya, that Qaddafi is removed from power, the opposition prevails, and a secular regime friendly to the United States emerges on the southern edge of the Mediterranean. These outcomes will have to be largely the work of others. President Obama signaled Monday he will dirty his hands as little as possible with the hard, patient work of American leadership in the world.
This article originally appeared on FoxNews.com on Wednesday, March 30, 2011.
I caught up with Karl Rove, at least by phone, in Austin. In the public’s mind, he’s become so identified with President George W. Bush that it’s easy to forget he remains one of the savviest political analysts, in part because of his encyclopedic memory of Republican races.
On the day Tim Pawlenty announced his exploratory committee I asked Rove what he thought of the former Minnesota governor’s pre-campaign. He responded, “I think he is much improved from a year ago.” He praised Pawlenty for a “much sharper, crisper message” and, more importantly, for “a better explanation of his record as governor.” But Rove resists the notion that we know exactly who will be in and out of the race. There are only three candidates with exploratory committees, but, he explained, “There are a dozen or more thinking about it.” He lists Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Indiana Gov.Mitch Daniels, Rep.Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee in this group. And then he jokes, “And don’t forget Donald Trump!” In short, he made the case that at this stage “running” means that “in one shape or another that they are putting themselves in a position” to run, if they want to.
He doesn’t rule out a late decider, but he says bluntly, “I think December is too late.”
In the Internet era, Rove told me, the process of introducing and garnering support for candidates, is “sped up,”a s seen in Sen. Scott Brown’s race. Rove recalled that, with the help of the Internet, Brown in the closing days of the campaign “was taking in more money than he could spend.” But still, Rove said that “the nature of the early contests and the long race” put pressure on candidates to give themselves some lead time. He observed that when a candidate travels around the country, “People make a psychic commitment to a candidate.” That attachment may be hard to break when a new face belatedly enters the race. Moreover, he noted that candidates who have entered late “may have said repeatedly they are not running and why.” Those comments (“I am not ready,” he suggested would be one) may come back to haunt a candidate. And, of course, if you wait too long “the people who are going to help you . . . will be spoken for.”
So what are the keys to winning the nomination? Rove rattles off four.
First, the winner will “demonstrate that he can unify all those elements — social conservatives, populists, fiscal conservatives” and also reach beyond the base as Ronald Reagan did with the Reagan Democrats. He explained of the need to reach beyond the base, “That is why language is important and clarity is important.” However, he cautioned that it’s wrong to pigeonhole distinct groups: “These groups share a common agenda,” he noted. The presence of so many social conservatives in the Tea Party movement, he observed, “is a sign of enormous maturity and confidence” of a group of voters who, without sacrificing their own core beliefs, see the prominence of fiscal issues.
Second, Rove explained that candidates “need to create a narrative to explain ‘Why not Obama?’ and why them. They are going to have a problem if they don’t realize the second is harder and requires more time.” After all, as he pointed out, any conservative can critique Obama.
Third, Rove observed that all candidates have “strengths and challenges.” The key to a successful race is to “broaden the strengths” and minimize and ameliorate the weaknesses. For Romney, Rove said flat-out that health-care is his biggest challenge. “I like Romney very much,” Rove said, but the recent flap with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) “is illustrative of the problem” Romney will face in explaining his Massachusetts health-care plan.
The fourth item, Rove said, “is the hardest to prepare for.” He recalled that in every campaign there is “some unanticipated moment” when the candidate is challenged and has to show what he is made of. For Bush, that moment came when he lost the New Hampshire primary in 2000. Voters wondered, “Is he going to be tough enough?” In South Carolina, Bush proved his mettle.
I also asked Rove about the gambit by some candidates, Barbour most recently, to play the neo-isolationist card. Rove said, “There is a a difference between saying there is waste in the Pentagon — there is — and saying we need to reduce spending on defense.” There is a market in the GOP for the former (few recall that Bush ran on “reforming the military”), but the second issue is “problematic. There is a very strong nationalistic element in the Republican Party.” He also observed that Israel is vitally important to many conservatives and “there are a lot of 9/11 Republicans” who joined the party out of concern over national security.
Rove reinforced my sense that while everyone talks about “a late start,” there is plenty going on in the Republican 2012 race, and what candidates do — or don’t do now — may determine the outcome.
This article originally appeared on WashingtonPost.com on Tuesday, March 22, 2011.
Last week was a bad week for America because it was a bad week for President Obama.
West Wing politicos may not share that opinion. They seem to think any week during which the president makes a speech or holds a news conference is a good week: Americans get to see the amazing, inspiring Mr. Obama. But three images of Mr. Obama from last week are hardly uplifting.
First, there was the president on Libya -- dithering, indecisive, unreliable, and weak. As Qaddafi’s mercenaries and bombers brutally grabbed back momentum from the democratic opposition, all Mr. Obama could say was, “My national security team has been working…to monitor the situation…to prepare the full range of options…”
If America’s failure to lead allows Qaddafi to snuff out the popular uprising against his dictatorship and regain power, the consequences for the U.S. will be severe. Dictators will know the U.S. president is a pushover. Our allies around the world will be dispirited and our adversaries emboldened.
Then there was the on-going budget battle. The failure of Mr. Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass a budget before the start of the fiscal year last October 1 is an astonishing act of incompetence. They controlled the entire process with wide margins in both houses. Now we are reduced to funding the government of the world’s most powerful nation with continuing resolutions that cover two or three-week periods. And Congressional Democrats are whining it is impossible to cut $60 billion out of a budget that consists of $3.8 trillion dollars.
At a Friday morning press conference Mr. Obama called the failure to pass a budget “irresponsible” and said “the notion that we can’t get resolved last year’s budget in a sensible way…defies common sense.” But he was not passive observer. He’s the president who failed to get his own budget approved by his own party last year.
Then Mr. Obama went on to say of the budget that “it shouldn’t be that complicated…to get this completed.” This came after weeks during which Democratic Congressional leaders criticized the president for providing no leadership, then the appointment by Mr. Obama of Vice President Joe Biden as his personal negotiator on the budget, and Mr. Biden’s almost immediate departure for a weeklong foreign trip. Mr. Obama still refused to get his hands dirty by offering a possible solution.
Then there were the president’s remarks to members of the National Governors Association on Wisconsin, last month, where he cautioned, “I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified.”
This was a classic Obama straw man. Who exactly is “vilifying” or “denigrating” whom? The president’s intimation was that it was Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, but Mr. Walker’s tone has been mild, even-tempered, restrained and entirely appropriate.
If there are people who needed a presidential admonishment about civility and respect, they are the protestors who broke into the Wisconsin capital building in a vain attempt to keep the legislature from voting, the protestors who compared Mr. Walker to Adolf Hitler, and the Democratic legislators who fled the state rather than do their duty. But those would be the president’s allies and admonition is only required of his opponents.
When Mr. Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, he had the annoying habit of voting “present” on controversial issues he felt might damage his future political ambitions. But at least Mr. Obama showed up then. The president’s refusal now to provide leadership on Libya or the budget and his readiness to score cheap political points with straw man attacks makes his days in the State Senate look like an era of true statesmanship.
This article originally appeared on FoxNews.com on Monday, March 14, 2011.
In his Saturday radio address, titled "Both Parties Must Come Together on a Budget that Cuts Wasteful Spending Without Sacrificing Investments in the Future," President Obama said, “My administration has already put forward specific cuts that meet congressional Republicans halfway.” Other administration figures echoed Mr. Obama’s “halfway” line here and here and here.
The Continuing Resolution passed by the then-Democratically controlled Congress in December set a spending target for the balance of Fiscal Year 2011 of $1.083 trillion.
The spending bill passed by the Republican House of Representatives last month set a spending target for the balance of the Fiscal Year of $1.026 trillion. These difference between these two measures is $57 billion.
You’d think when the president said he would “meet Congressional Republicans halfway,” he was proposing a cut of $28.5 billion from December’s Continuing Resolution, leaving spending at $1.055 trillion for the balance of the fiscal year.
No, Mr. Obama proposed spending $1.077 trillion for the slightly less than seven months left in Fiscal Year 2011. That’s only $6.5 billion less than the Continuing Resolution passed last December.
Once again the Obama administration is playing fast and loose with numbers, hoping to sneak one by the media and the American people. It adds to the sense Mr. Obama is neither serious about cutting spending nor about negotiating with Congressional Republicans. How can the GOP have meaningful discussions with an administration so ready to engage in such financial flim-flam?
This article originally appeared on FoxNews.com on Monday, March 7, 2011.
President Barack Obama set up another straw man last week in his speech to the National Governors Association when he said "I don't think anybody does any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon."
Who is denigrating or vilifying public employees? Clearly Mr. Obama was slyly suggesting that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was. But clearly he is not. The mild-mannered Wisconsin chief executive has been, well, mild-mannered and polite, restrained in tone and rhetoric. Rather than have the courage to accuse Mr. Walker by name of denigrating or vilifying the public unions as they have denigrated and vilified Mr. Walker, Mr. Obama preferred a cheap political hit-and-run.
Then there was the last part of Mr. Obama's sentence. Mr. Walker was not sitting in front of the president when he uttered the sentence, but Colorado Gov. Hickenlooper and Missouri Gov. Nixon were. And unlike Wisconsin, which allows and will continue to allow state employees to bargain collectively (albeit for less than before Mr. Walker's reforms), neither Colorado nor Missouri allow state employees to bargain collectively. That's their existing state law.
If Mr. Obama were truly concerned about the rights of state employees, then he should have chastised those two governors and the chief executives of other states that statutorily prohibit collective bargaining for state employees. Mr. Obama's failure to do so shows his political sensitivity (keep quiet when the battleground states in question - Colorado and Missouri - have Democratic governors) and the president's expediency (attack a Republican governor of another battleground state). Both show the importance of self-interest to Mr. Obama's thinking. Neither are attractive when they dominate the thinking of any president of any party.
This article originally appeared on FoxNews.com on Saturday, March 5, 2011.
This morning, Gov. Mike Huckabee told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that President Obama “is going to be tough to beat. I think all this talk that ‘oh, he’s going to be a one term president’ -- people tend to forget that only one time since 1868 has an incumbent president been taken out who ran for re-election.”
I agree with Gov. Huckabee's sentiment about President Obama: 2012 will be a tough contest. But the governor's history needs a little polishing. Since 1868, six presidents were defeated for re-election (the number rises to seven if 1868 is included in the series) and at least two presidents faced such long odds for re-election they gave up the contest.
Grover Cleveland was defeated for re-election in 1888 after one term. His successor, Benjamin Harrison, was similarly defeated for re-election. William Howard Taft went down after one term in 1908. Herbert Hoover was booted after one term in 1932. Jimmy Carter (thankfully) made it only one term before being bested by Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton after one term, opening the way for the rise of Huckabee to the vacant Arkansas lieutenant governor's office in a 1993 special election, following the elevation of Lt. Gov. Jim Guy Tucker to the governor's office. Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman both decided against running for re-election after serving their first complete terms, because their defeats were so likely. Rutherford Hayes was so unpopular that he was also a likely loser in 1880, but had pledged to serve only one term. And Gov. Huckabee's analogy starts in 1868, when President Andrew Johnson was so reviled that he couldn't be re-nominated.
If the transcript is mistaken and Gov. Huckabee said "1968" rather than "1868," then two presidents -- Carter and Bush 41 -- have been defeated for re-election since 1968.
A better way to look at it is that since WWII, five presidents have sought re-election and won (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43) and four had either been defeated for re-election (Carter and Bush 41) or withdrawn from the contest because the odds were so long (Truman and LBJ). While President Obama is a slight favorite and a tough campaigner, the outcome of the 2012 contest very much depends on the quality of the GOP nominee and their campaign over the next 20 months.
This article originally appeared on FoxNews.com on Monday, February 21, 2011.
Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has recently attacked Republicans over the upcoming vote on raising the debt ceiling, saying, “We can’t back out on the money we owe the rest of the world. We can’t do as the Gingrich crowd did a few years ago, close the government.”
Senator Reid joined Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who on behalf of the Obama administration warned Republicans that, “Failure to increase the limit would be deeply irresponsible.”
The problem is neither Senator Reid nor President Obama has any moral standing to lecture Republicans about the irresponsibility of voting against the debt ceiling, because unfortunately for them, they voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006.
At the time, Reid said:
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
“How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
“They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”
When Senator Reid was recently asked by NBC’s David Gregory about the conflict between his 2006 and 2011 statements, Reid replied, “I don’t really know what vote you’re talking about.”
Let’s see if we can assist the Senate Majority Leader. In 2006, he said and voted one way; in 2011, he said and intends to vote the opposite way. That is known as (take your pick) hypocrisy, a double standard, or a head-snapping example of intellectual dishonesty.
Then there is Senator Obama’s March 16, 2006 speech on the Senator floor, in which he described raising the debt limit in terms I suspect he wishes he’d never said:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Mr. Obama’s vote against raising the debt ceiling isn’t comparable to voting against it today because in 2006 there was every expectation the debt ceiling increase would be approved. So being “irresponsible” and intending to “close the government” is fine as long as you’re expected not to prevail?
Actually, there are two differences between the 2011 vote and the 2006 vote. The first is that neither Senators Reid nor Obama was really against raising the debt ceiling because they favored less government spending. Both were on record as opposing the Bush budgets as too stingy. They wanted more spending – except on Iraq. And because they couldn’t muster the votes to cut off war funding, they fulminated and pranced and preened on the Senate floor to burnish their deficit-fighting credentials without actually having to cut anything.
The second difference is this: Reid and Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling with no plan or higher purpose in mind. They simply wanted to score rhetorical points against President Bush.
Unlike Reid and Obama, Republicans are trying to use their votes on the debt ceiling to win important concessions on cutting government spending. In return for raising the debt ceiling – perhaps temporarily and for less an amount than the administration wants – House Republicans will extract cuts in spending. The GOP is not grandstanding, as Reid and Obama were in 2006, but instead seeking concrete changes.
For those interested, here are other Democrats who voted ‘No’ on raising the debt ceiling in 2006, 2007 and 2008, and who consequently have no grounds to criticize their Republican colleagues for doing likewise in 2011:
September 29, 2007 vote to increase debt limit by $850 billion:
Not Voting - 5
October 3, 2008: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, $700 billion increase in debt limit
This article originally appeared on FoxNews.com on Tuesday, February 8, 2011.
Contrary to what I said in a posting on Fox News Opinion Tuesday that Atlantic Media Company hosted a going-away party for retiring White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Atlantic Media President Justin Smith e-mailed me to say the company “did not host the party and had nothing to do with it in any way.”
Mr. Smith is accurate in the first instance and deserves a correction: it turns out the company itself did not host the party but rather Atlantic Media Vice President Linda Douglass.
But while Ms. Douglass was a White House colleague of Mr. Axelrod’s, doesn’t the question of appropriateness remain? Should a news organization be comfortable with one of its top management hosting a semi-official going-away party for a retiring White House advisor, attended by the president, cabinet secretaries and the elite of the administration?
There will always be social interactions between Washington journalists and Washington political figures. It’s partly how the town operates, gets to know itself, cultivates sources, and collects gossip. Occasionally, even friendship intrudes.
But is it even conceivable that a news organization would be unconcerned if one of its senior executives threw a similar party for a retiring aide from a conservative White House?
And for that matter, for every Linda Douglass, who goes from working for CBS News to covering the 2008 campaign for ABC News to working in the Obama White House and then back to the world of journalism as a vice president for a news organization that prides itself as being one of “the most influential media outlets in America,” how many conservatives can make a similar professional journey in and out of the mainstream media as a journalist?
This article originally appeared on FoxNews.com on Wednesday, February 2, 2011.