The Stunning Decline of Obama!

I only do this rarely but it was so well-written and stems from a gentleman called Nile Gardiner who writes for the British newspaper called "The Telegraph".

The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.

Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.

The Realclearpolls now has Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.

There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit.

Americans are increasingly rejecting Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.

Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lackluster handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.

On the national security and foreign policy front, Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one. Can it get any worse for Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.

1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.

2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership

This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.

3. Obama fails to inspire

In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan address at West Point to his flat State of the Union Address, Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.

4. The United States is drowning in debt

The Congressional Budget Office Long Term Budget Outlook  offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.

5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat

The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.

6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake

In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of his passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”

7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive

While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.

8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.

9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security

From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.

10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologizing into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.

There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.

This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

A Young Ronald Reagan?

Texas Governor Rick Perry scorched the political pot Tuesday with a red-hot rhetorical attack on Fed-head Ben Bernanke. When asked about the Fed's reopening the monetary spigots, Perry said, "If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas."

And that wasn't all. In a more controversial slam, Perry said, "Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous -- or treasonous -- in my opinion."

Pretty rough stuff. Very aggressive language. And undoubtedly way too strong. It was poorly received in the financial world.

No, Ben Bernanke is not a traitor. This is a policy dispute; it's not a matter of patriotism. However, and this is an important however, the rest of Perry's statement suggests that hisanalysis of Fed policy is right on target. In other words, wrong words, right analysis.

The Texas governor, who by some polls is the new Republican presidential front-runner, went on to say: "We've already tried this. All it's going to be doing is devaluing the dollar in your pocket. And we cannot afford that."

Well, to me that is exactly right.

Let's take a quick look at Bernanke's QE2 record of pump priming: The dollar fell 12 percent on foreign exchange markets. The consumer price index jumped more than 5 percent at an annual rate. And the $600 billion cheapening of the greenback led to skyrocketing commodity prices, including oil, gasoline and food. That oil price shock is one of the principal factors behind the 0.8 percent first-half economic stutter. As a result of the jump in inflation linked to QE2, real consumer incomes slumped badly and consumer spending fell substantially.

Before QE2, the economy was growing about 2.5 percent, even though it already was blunted by numerous tax and regulatory obstacles. But the cheap-dollar oil shock came perilously close to pushing us into recession.

So it turns out that Perry -- even with his overly strong language -- is a pretty sharp economic and monetary analyst.

In fact, Perry's analysis actually channels recent Fed dissents by reserve bank presidents Dick Fisher of Dallas, Charles Plosser of Philadelphia and Narayana Kocherlakota of Minneapolis. They object to a two-year extension of the Fed's zero-interest-rate policy and, in so doing, have set down an opposition marker to a potential new shock-and-awe quantitative easing that many fear will be announced Aug. 26 when Bernanke speaks to the Jackson Hole, Wyo., Fed conference.

What makes Perry's position even more interesting is his disagreement with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. When I interviewed Romney this past April, he essentially defended Bernanke and dollar depreciation. "Well, you know, I think Ben Bernanke is a student of monetary policy," Romney said. "He's doing as good a job as he thinks he can do in the Federal Reserve."

Meanwhile, in tea party circles on the campaign trail, Bernanke is a much-disliked figure. Rightly or wrongly, he is blamed for bailing out Wall Street. Also, many view Bernanke's massive money creation, along with President Barack Obama's massive federal stimulus spending, as another failed big-government attempt to revive the economy.

Tea partyers and many others fervently believe in lower spending, reduced tax burdens and a regulatory rollback to strengthen small businesses and the private economy. They're against Uncle Sam's just throwing money at problems.

So in this sense, Perry's red-hot riposte at Bernanke may be shrewd politics, as well as a much-needed defense of stable money.

The former Air Force captain piloted C-130 missions in Central America, South America and North Africa and all over Europe. He's a fierce devotee of American exceptionalism and greatness. My hunch is that just like Ronald Reagan, Perry views a collapsing-dollar threat as more evidence of American decline. And he is very much opposed to any of that.

Hey Libs: Obama is a Bad President!

I’ve gotten a chuckle out of the liberal civility war that’s been going on since the debt deal was signed and S&P downgraded U.S. credit ratings. The Bolsheviks are trading salvos with the Mensheviks and hunkering down for the long war.

On the one hand you’ve had some liberals who feel that Obama just appears weak; on the other you have some progressives who think that Obama’s been done in by a message problem and lack of conviction more than anything else.

So, today I read Colin Delany's peacekeeping article on the Huffington Post calling for a truce with some interest. Delany says that argument is about two sides of political operations: messaging and mechanics- by mechanics he’s talking GOTV. He argues that the message hasn’t been the problem, but rather the mechanics.   

Delany’s delusional on both his general point and wading into the fray.

Because after all the campaigning and advertising, all the stump speeches and robo-calls, politics still is about the one thing: the truth.

And here’s the truth for you Democrats out there: Your candidate sucks.

No, really. I mean it.

I’m not saying that because I hate Obamacare and cap and trade and unions. I do hate those things, but I’m speaking from the perspective of a political professional with a background in message and mechanics.

Liberals are going to have a very hard time selling the candidate Obama again for the very same reason that they had an easy time selling him the first time around.

In the last presidential election, the country eventually went with the candidate who least reminded them of George W. Bush. This time around, I’m guessing they’ll do the same.

This comparison won’t favor Obama.  

Voters will put up with a lot of things. They’ll put up with war that stretches on for five years too long; they’ll put up with a temporary downturn in the economy; they’ll put up with presidents who can’t keep their pants on.

But they won’t put up with a con job. 

Don’t misunderstand me: I think George Bush was a good guy and a not bad president. But on the Iraq War there may have been a con-job in play. The Republican Party eventually paid a price for that con job by losing support in 2004, 2006 and ultimately in 2008.

Don’t get me wrong: I supported and still do support American involvement in Iraq, but if the Bush administration put together a strong argument for the war I missed it. My support came through my own reasoning that America would be stronger with 250,000 troops stationed within marching distance of Tehran.   

But that doesn’t touch the Bush administration’s real sin, which was their screwing up of the prosecution of the war.

“We had a plan to invade Iraq. One that would have worked,” one retired U.S. general told me shortly after the invasion turned into an occupation. “It was almost as if they purposefully tried to screw it up.”

Willfully for almost six years, the Bush administration stuck to the “other” plan until John McCain forced them, on the back of his presidential aspirations, to try the “surge” strategy that soldiers had been advocating for years.

It worked. 

Now, fast forward to today.

If I had a dollar for every time someone has said to me, “You know, it’s almost as if Obama is purposefully trying to screw up the economy,” I’d be a wealthy man.

Very wealthy.

I don’t buy the conspiracy theory that Obama is screwing things up on purpose. But like George Bush, he’s guilty of not being honest with the American people.

But here’s the difference: I think George W. Bush is an honorable man who had a messaging problem and poor execution.

I think Barack Hussein Obama is a liar who also can’t manage the presidency.

Obama campaigned against the debt ceiling increase, higher taxes on anyone making less than $250,000, on war without congressional authorization, on not nationalizing healthcare; he bragged that if he couldn’t get the economy right in three years, he ought to be a one-term-president.

Lie yourself out of these lies, Mr. President. If I were a progressive I’d be pissed off too.

I’m part of the vast right-wing conspiracy and I’m pissed off.      

I may not have approved of how George W. Bush was blowing things up, but at least he was blowing up the right things. 

So far the only thing Obama can take credit for blowing up is his fragile, incomplete ego.

He has no accomplishments, no legacy, except empty rhetoric and false promises.

On the one thing that could have brought us all together, the honor killing of Osama bin Laden, he acted like such an ass by his “Osama bin Laden’s Still Dead World Tour,” that he fumbled his one legitimate opportunity to prove he could rise to the occasion.

There’s a long time between now and election-day. Obama still has a chance to get reelected because a lot can happen to right an economy gone wrong. Eventually something has to go right, just by sheer happenstance.

But his chances are diminished because he can’t be honest, probably not even with himself.

And for a man like that, there’s not much more to lose besides the presidency.

It's been a long time!

Some of the recipients to this Blog will understand why while the rest must live with the fact that it’s been a while. I may take it easier for some time but what has to be must be.

One week after Democrats drove us to the brink of default because they wouldn’t cut the U.S. budget deficit, White House officials tried to blame everyone from ratings agencies to the Tea Party for the economic woes they created.

The worst Treasury Secretary in our history, Timothy Geithner told a TV audience on Sunday: 

"There is no risk the—the United States of America would ever not be in a position to meet its obligations," according to Business Insider.

Um, Tim. Where have you been the last month?

Tim Geithner then also blasted the rating agency S&P for downgrading U.S. debt, saying they showed “terrible” judgment; that they didn’t understand “basic U.S. fiscal budget math.”

Um, Tim. Where have you been the last two years?

The statement that S&P doesn’t understand “basic U.S. fiscal budget math” is so far out of touch that I wonder if Geithner even knows how to add or subtract. The economic results that Geithner and company have given us, tells us that at the very least the math the White House is using isn’t working. 

Remember: This from the guy who predicted in the spring that there was virtually no way that any rating agency would downgrade U.S. debt at anytime.

The real problem here is that Geithner is once again showing which side doesn’t understand the “basic U.S. fiscal budget math.”

Or any other math for that matter.

Here’s some more math that Obama and Geithner doesn’t understand:

Gasoline prices are at $3.673 per gallon versus $2.776 a year ago.

Unemployment is at 9.2 percent officially. Real unemployment is over 16 percent, not budging much from its peak of 17.4 percent despite record-shattering government spending.

Housing prices are still declining despite a much ballyhooed month-over-month increase in June of .01 percent. The average home price is now at $138,000 versus the $202,000 peak price.

The debt-to-GDP ratio is now over 100 percent for the U.S. It was this ratio more than any other that sealed the downgrade of U.S debt. Geithner knows this.  At a time that rating agencies were warning that unless the U.S. significantly cut its debt, that a downgrade was inevitable, the administration, lead-or mislead- by Obama and Geithner  put together a debt deal that made sure that debt-to-GDP went up, not down.

Since the debt deal was announced the stock market has been on a record losing streak, staunched by mixed trading on Friday. And nothing Geithner said over the weekend is going to give the markets confidence for the week. 

It’s not just the debt deal that’s math challenged though.

Government economists have been forced to revise downward employment and growth estimates over the last few months. The recession isn’t officially on, but psychologically it’s on enough to spook the markets, sap consumer confidence and start a capital strike.   

In short, this economy has a headache, and it’s got Geithner’s and Obama’s name written all over it.

To make matters worse Geithner, who told the White House that perhaps he was leaving after the debt deal was sealed, has decided that he’s going to stay after all.

Thanks Tim. Where have you been the last few months?

Predictably, Former White House senior adviser David Axelrod blamed the Tea Party movement on Sunday for the debt downgrade, which show that the White House isn’t just math challenged but maybe having group LSD flashbacks. 

The S&P ratings moved downward because the debt deal didn’t go far enough in S&P’s estimation, which is exactly the position the Tea Party took on the issue. So at least in the estimation of professional rating agency that has 150 years experience, the Tea Party is right and the White House is wrong.

Geithner knows this and that’s what has the White House so mad.   

The White House has now blamed the Tea Party for the debt downgrade, racism, global warming, terrorism, SUVs, the coal industry, illegal immigration, incivility and obesity.

By my math, that makes the Tea Party 100 percent OK with me.  

It’s nice to be back!       

For almost 6000 years ...............

Just when you think you’ve heard it all, you haven’t.

Just when you think that Obama cannot appall, he can.

Last night I was fuming and I said to a recovering Obama voter, “He’s stupid.”

When the recovering Obama voter protested the adjective, I modified it to “naïve”.

This morning, having slept on it, I’m ready to modify it yet again. He’s unfit for office!

Yesterday, Obama's major speech on the Middle East Thursday will come back to haunt him. He said nothing that will have any impact in deterring Syrian government violence against pro-democracy protestors, but the he did make pronouncements that threaten another state in the Middle East: Israel, America's strongest ally in the region.

In his speech Thursday, he paid lip service to Israeli security but laid down dangerous markers for restarting peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. With this speech, Obama became the first American president to require that Israel accept its pre-1967 borders as a starting point to negotiations with the Palestinians.

This is a dramatic departure from U.S. policy, which recognized that agreed-to final borders would be the end product of negotiations between the parties, not a precondition to starting talks. In essence, what Obama has called for is unilateral concessions from Israel without a single concrete concession from the Palestinians.

What makes this even more dangerous is that a terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of Israel -- Hamas -- governs Palestinians in Gaza. On the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is in the hands of a Hamas-Fatah coalition, with the two groups having agreed to put aside their differences in order to demand recognition of a Palestine state by the United Nations this fall. If that happens, there will be no such thing as what the president termed "a secure Israel."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to respond, calling Israel's pre-1967 borders "indefensible." History proves he's right. In 1967, Israel was on the eve of an all-out assault by its Arab neighbors when it took out the Egyptian and Syrian air forces. Within six days, Israel had defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon and gained significant territory, including the Arab-controlled parts of Jerusalem.

Nonetheless, Israel was attacked again a few years later. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched an offensive on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur. Again, Israel was successful in defeating both countries and gained more territory in the process.

Even though Israel was twice the victor, both wars were the result of Arab aggression. Yet Israel has proven its willingness to return territory gained in war. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt after negotiating a peace settlement with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

Israel has been the one country in the area willing from the start to negotiate away land in return for recognition of its right to exist and a promise of peaceful coexistence from its neighbors. But instead of encouraging that precedent, Obama wants unilateral territorial concessions from Israel in return for empty promises.

The good news is that the Obama plan will go nowhere. There is no chance that Congress will support the administration's heavy-handed pressure on Israel. And the Israelis will never agree to such conditions as a prerequisite to peace negotiations.

And Obama has hurt himself domestically as well. Jewish donors and voters were an important part of Obama's winning coalition in 2008. But many in the pro-Israel community are deeply disturbed at what they see as the president's lukewarm support for Israel and will not likely give him the same level of support in 2012.

On Sunday, Obama is set to address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most influential lobbying groups in the country. It is expected that t he'll say all the right things about how important an ally Israel is to the United States and that our two countries share common values and principles. The audience will applaud politely -- and some die-hard Democrats in the group may even tell themselves that Obama is a good friend to Israel.

But Obama can't have it both ways even though he may think he can. He can't give a speech next week that makes dangerous demands on Israel and pretend a few days later that his words have not damaged the important U.S.-Israeli relationship.

And note that Obama made no mention of the Arab’s claim to “Right of Return.” Israel will never accede to that claim and the Palestinians will never abandon it.

Obama has abandoned Israel. Now it’s time that Israel's supporters in the U.S. abandon him.

What’s the Hebrew for “F*ck You?” I’m sure that today’s Oval Office tapes could supply the answer.

Stupid is as Stupid Does!

I am indebted to a good friend for sending me the following tidbits. Some may be purely apocryphal but they are hilarious and even if only one is true the implication is terrifying. And it would explain a lot wouldn’t it?

A DC airport ticket agent offers some examples of why this country is in trouble:

1. I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman (Carol Shea-Porter) ask for an aisle seat so that her hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the window. (On an airplane!)

2. I got a call from a Kansas Congressman's (Moore) staffer (Howard Bauleke), who wanted to go to Capetown. I started to explain the length of the flight and the passport information when he interrupted me with, ''I'm not trying to make you look stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts ..''

Without trying to make him look stupid, I calmly explained, ''Cape Cod is in Massachusetts , Capetown is in Africa. ''

His response -- click.

3. A senior Vermont Congressman (Bernie Sanders) called, furious about a Florida package we did. I asked what was wrong with the vacation in Orlando .. He said he was expecting an ocean-view room. I tried to explain that's not possible, since Orlando is in the middle of the state.

He replied, “Don't lie to me, I looked on the map and Florida is a very thin state!''

4. I got a call from a lawmaker's wife (Landra Reid) who asked, ''Is it possible to see England from Canada ?''

I said, ''No.''

She said, ''But they look so close on the map.''

5. An aide for a cabinet member(Janet Napolitano) once called and asked if he could rent a car in Dallas . I pulled up the reservation and noticed he had only a 1-hour layover in Dallas. When I asked him why he wanted to rent a car, he said, ''I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need a car to drive between gates to save time.''



6. An Illinois Congresswoman (Jan Schakowsky) called last week She needed to know how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 a.m., and got to Chicago at 8:33 a.m.

I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Illinois , but she couldn't understand the concept of time zones. Finally, I told her the plane went fast, and she bought that.

7. A New York lawmaker, (Jerrold Nadler) called and asked, ''Do airlines put your physical description on your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to whom?'' I said, 'No, why do you ask?'

He replied, ''Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said (FAT), and I'm overweight. I think that's very rude!''

After putting him on hold for a minute, while I looked into it.  I came back and explained the city code for Fresno, California is (FAT - Fresno Air Terminal), and the airline was just putting a destination tag on his luggage.

8. A Senator John Kerry aide (Lindsay Ross) called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii. After going over all the cost info, she asked, ''Would it be cheaper to fly to California and then take the train to Hawaii?''

9. I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman, Bobby Bright (D) from Alabama who asked, ''How do I know which plane to get on?''

I asked him what exactly he meant, to which he replied, ''I was told my flight number is 823, but none of these planes have numbers on them.''

10. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) called and said, ''I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola , Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?''

I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola , FL on a commuter plane.

She said, ''Yeah, whatever, smarty!''

11. Mary Landrieu (D) Senator from Louisiana called and had a question about the documents she needed in order to fly to China . After a lengthy discussion about passports, I reminded her that she needed a visa. “Oh, no I don't. I've been to China many times and never had to have one of those''

I double checked and sure enough, her stay required a visa.

When I told her this she said, ''Look, I've been to China four times and every time they accepted my American Express!''

12. A New Jersey Congressman (John Adler) called to make reservations, ''I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York.''

I was at a loss for words. Finally, I said, ''Are you sure that's the name of the town?''

“Yes, what flights do you have?'' replied the man.

After some searching, I came back with, ''I'm sorry, sir, I've looked up every airport code in the country and can't find a Rhino anywhere."

The man retorted, ''Oh, don't be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!''

So I scoured a map of the state of New York and finally offered, ''You don't mean Buffalo, do you?''

The reply? ''Whatever! I knew it was a big animal.''

Comment would be superfluous so I won’t.