When images of Jean Paul Gaultier-clad First Lady Michelle Obama on a $75,000-a-day Spanish holiday hit the wires, controversy was bound to erupt back home. Her carefully crafted image as "everywoman" was blown.

In addition to the high cost, the evolving justifications for the trip offered by the White House's flack were just as dizzying.
 
First it was a private, mother-daughter trip that press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to comment on.
Then, the White House said she was paying for most of the trip, but that the taxpayers would pay for some of it because she'd be meeting with the King and Queen of Spain. The East Wing's final justification was that the First Lady traveled to Spain to comfort a friend who'd lost her husband.
 
The spin revealed that the White House had a public relations problem: After attempting to further the notion that she was just the woman next door, it couldn't help that the First Lady looked positively royal. That only cemented the suspicion that she is far fancier and higher maintenance than she, or her handlers, would like us to believe.

Read more here
 

Sacrifice is something that many Americans are becoming all too familiar with during this economic downturn. It was a key theme in President Obama's inaugural address to the nation, and he's referenced it numerous times when lecturing the country on how to get back on its feet.

But while most of the country is pinching pennies and downsizing  summer sojourns - or forgoing them altogether - the Obamas don't seem to be heeding their own advice. While many of us are struggling, the First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her "closest friends." According to CNN, the group is expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms, more than a third of the lodgings at the 160-room resort. Not exactly what one would call cutting back in troubled times.

Reports are calling the lodgings of  Obama's Spanish fiesta, the Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella, "luxurious," "posh" and "a millionaires' playground." Estimated room rate per night? Up to a staggering $2,500. Method of transportation? Air Force Two.

To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.

Perhaps it could be that the Obamas, who seem to fancy themselves more along the lines of international celebrities than actual leaders, espouse a different view of sacrifice. When Michelle Obama accompanied her husband to Copenhagen along with best buddy Oprah Winfrey, she billed the trip - an ultimately unsuccessful bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago - as follows: "As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the President to come for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home."
A quick jaunt to Denmark is a sacrifice? What portraits in courage!

The Obama modus operandi is becoming clear...

Read more here:

On Election Day 2008, Obama won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976, according to Politico. Today, however, that group is abandoning him in droves. A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted this month reveals that only 40% of whites approve of the job the President is doing. Worse yet, these cracks have penetrated his own base: Among white Democrats, approval on the economy is down since April from 80% to 60%.

Dig deeper and the polling points to another ominous sign: Obama's approval with white college-educated females has dipped below 50% for the first time in his presidency. Tasked with making household budget decisions, women are skeptical of the President's health care plan and disappointed in our economic outlook. This explains Obama's effort to woo the women of "The View." It also explains his administration's backing of an equal-pay bill in Congress - the rallying cry of bra-burning feminists. But don't expect them to buy it. Talk is cheap.

Jewish voters have grown more skeptical as well. Obama's newfound warmth toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel after a very public scolding is being taken with a triple helping of kosher salt in the American Jewish community. This presents fund-raising difficulties with a demographic that contributed heavily to his 2008 campaign.

Women and Jews aren't the only reasons to worry. Hispanics also show signs of mutiny. Although a judge has ruled against aspects of Arizona's immigration law, the whole fiasco only highlights his failure to push for comprehensive immigration reform. Obama won 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, but today only 43% of Hispanics surveyed through an AP-Univision poll say that Obama is adequately addressing their needs.

But the largest and perhaps most telling dip in support is among independents - a key factor in his 2008 win. His approval with them is a mere 38%, with spending and deficits cited as the primary issue of concern. It's because of them that campaigns fight so hard for the middle, and without the backing of this bloc it's unlikely Obama will be awarded a second term.

So with the Obama coalition deeply fractured, is anyone still in his corner?

While liberals are still sticking with their guy, they remain unhappy about the war in Afghanistan, Obama's failure to close Guantanamo, a public option for health care and other progressive priorities. In fact. Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania even suggested on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Obama's current standing might trigger a primary challenge in 2012. That statement would have seemed like lunacy a year ago.

And despite the unemployment rate for African-Americans being almost double the national average, Obama maintains solid approval ratings with black constituents. But if the exit polls of recent midterm elections are any indication, they're unlikely to vote this fall without Obama on the ticket.

Unless Obama demonstrates he can lead on the economy and change course on his agenda, the President who quickly rose to fame for his powerful campaign coalition is poised to remain famous for losing it even quicker.

andrea@andreatantaros.com

Though few are talking about it, the most important political fight to hit Washington is on deck to occupy the next six months of debate: Whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year. While it doesn't sound sexy, the ramifications of the decision will be a crucial pivot point for the national economy.

Although the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed with bipartisan support, you can expect class warfare this time around. Liberal Democrats will push to keep the cuts in place only for the middle class, while screaming that Republicans are eternally trying to favor the rich. On the other hand, fiscally conservative Democrats and most Republicans will point out that hiking taxes on the rich will wreak havoc on investment and employment projections. And they're right.

The problem with taxing the supposedly "rich" is that the vast majority of those in the top bracket are owners of small businesses. Because most file as individuals, they are subject to the individual tax rates. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99.7% of all employer firms, employ more than half of all private-sector workers and generated 64% of the net new jobs from 1993 to 2008.

At a time when unemployment is a chief concern, dramatically increasing taxes on this segment of the economy would be the worst thing for our jobs outlook. Plus, taking new jobs off the table will hurt only the middle class, already hit hard by the dismal employment picture in the form of sluggish hiring and depressed wages.

Read more here

Come hell or, in this case, deep water, the Obama administration is determined to find a way around a recent federal court ruling that overturned its six-month offshore drilling ban in the Gulf of Mexico. In an effort to appease environmental groups, President Obama's team has drafted a revised version of the moratorium that would continue to keep deepwater activities at a standstill, likely triggering another lawsuit and an expensive court battle.

This will turn an environmental disaster into an economic catastrophe.

In the ruling that knocked down the drilling ban, U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman wrote that companies working in the gulf's offshore oil and gas fields would, in effect, be punished for "an invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet."

But it's not just corporations that will suffer. The President's efforts to halt deepwater drilling are causing added economic pain for Gulf States reeling from the spill's fallout. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said, "Even the revised moratorium will force thousands of hardworking Louisianans and others along the Gulf Coast into the unemployment lines."

Read more here:

The Obama administration is getting quite the reputation for bucking the wishes of the people. From pushing through an unpopular health care bill to imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling that's costing the already-suffering gulf region precious jobs, it has refused to back down when it comes to the will of the masses.

Now, President Obama's Justice Department has decided to sue the State of Arizona over its new law targeting illegal aliens, when a majority of the public favors the legislation, leaving many to wonder if the increasingly detached White House has gone too far.

The administration says its lawsuit is all about the law; Arizona, it says, is trying to enforce immigration statutes - which is the federal government's job alone.

It's hard to believe from a President who has already shaken the finger of moral disapproval at the bill.

Rather, anyone with basic political sense can see the move for what it is: a purely political maneuver intended to invigorate Hispanic voters - a key piece of the Democratic base - in time for the November elections. Obama is hoping that a bloody judicial showdown on immigration will translate into high turnout for Democrats. And that could be enough to sustain Democratic majorities in Congress.

Finally, the far left has figured out when to shut up. After years of taunting, jeering and seeking to criticize and undermine Gen. David Petraeus, they're now, thankfully, staying silent when it comes to the man who has been tasked with picking up the pieces in a very volatile Afghanistan.

No surprise why those on the left are suddenly patient and understanding: A Democrat is commander in chief.

When George W. Bush selected Petraeus to lead the much-debated surge in Iraq, an onslaught of criticism ensued. In perhaps the most disgusting display of disloyalty, MoveOn.org spent thousands of dollars to personally humiliate the general in a full-page ad that read: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

In the days that followed, the Senate voted on a resolution to condemn the attacks on Petraeus' honor and integrity. It passed with 72 "yeas" to 25 "nays" and 3 not voting, displaying that Petraeus hadn't just become an enemy of the far left, but also of some moderate Democrats, as well. Members like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) both voted against the resolution. In fact, it was a 2007 presentation, in front of the Armed Services Committee, of Petraeus' reports on progress that set the stage for the MoveOn.org ad; there, a highly critical Clinton said that the general's reports about conditions on the ground required a "willing suspension of disbelief."

Then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) chose not to give the general his full support, instead choosing to abstain on the resolution vote. So did then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). They were two of only three.

My, how things can change.

When it comes to me and golf, the two don't mix. I don't understand the fascination. I don't care to learn the "sport." And when it comes to United States Presidents and golf, the two especially don't mix. That's why it's perplexing to me that in a time of crisis, our commanders in chief continue to work on bettering their backswings, knowing criticism is bound to ensue.

When British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward was seen lounging on a yacht this past weekend, the White House wasted no time reprimanding him for taking some time off in the middle of a catastrophe happening under his watch. But  the President also took some time off - to hit the links.

In an effort to defend his boss, a White House spokesman argued that Obama's recent golf outing "probably does us all good as American citizens" because it gives him an opportunity to "clear his mind."

How, in the middle of a national disaster, is this President - or any President - not working a good thing?

If my apartment were on fire and I took time out to get a pedicure, it would seem absurd. Why would the President believe the visual of a triple bogey while the Gulf of Mexico is being destroyed is any better?

Obama isn't the first to come under fire for choosing putting over politics.

Read more here:

If you want to look like you're doing something in Washington, appoint a commission. Nothing says sleeves are being rolled up like a federal task force of "experts." The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no different.

During his Oval Office address to the nation this week, President Obama stressed that steps are being taken to ensure that a catastrophe like the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico never happens again.

One of these steps is - you guessed it - a newly formed blue-ribbon panel, appointed by Obama himself.

As he put it: "Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That's why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge."

Translation: I need to look good so I've compiled a jury of Ivy League-educated intelligentsia, lawyers and politicians to extend the sins of one company to an entire industry, all in six months.

Meet the magnificent seven: Frances Beinecke, Donald Boesch, Terry  Garcia, Cherry  Murray, Frances Ulmer, former EPA Administrator William  Reilly and former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.). The team will be led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Graham and Reilly are D.C. bureaucrats. Garcia and Ulmer are lawyers. Chu, who had to be told how BP's funnel worked, is a Nobel Prize winner (just like the President). Feel better?

Bizarrely, not one member of the commission has actual experience in the oil industry, which begs the question: Could any of these people actually drill a well?

During times of trials and tribulations, many people turn to Christ to help them through. It seems Sister - I mean Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi is no different. With speculation brewing that Democrats are poised to lose big in the fall midterm elections and the balance of power at stake, is Nancy Pelosi turning to Jesus for political salvation?

Her recent religious revival started shortly after the passage of the health care bill. Tasked with selling the unpopular overhaul, Pelosi opted to appeal to a higher power for help. She asked members of the clergy to make the case to their congregations in support of her legislation, with little criticism from the secular media.

The lesson thus far in the 2010 midterms: If you've supported Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in their quest to vastly expand the size of government, you're toast. Despite the White House spin, anti-incumbent is not the movement, anti-liberal is. And though you've heard and read over and over that this election is about throwing all the bums out, that line is merely a carefully crafted talking point from a politico whose party is in peril, being pushed by a complacent and largely leftist media because it is their agenda that's being rejected.

From now until November you'll hear Democrats try to deflect the wins of outsiders and Tea Party candidates like Rand Paul as merely a vote against Washington. While that's partly true, it's the prevalent D.C. culture of fiscal abuse and empowering government - the core of liberalism - that's the problem, not just the fact that these candidates happen to be sitting in office and reside in the Beltway.

Incumbency is the symptom, government intervention is the disease.

Read more here

Today, current Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter and Congressman Joe Sestak face off in the state’s Democratic primary. Polls show the candidates in a dead heat. The number of undecideds is still in the double digits, meaning that roughly one third of eligible voters have yet to make up their minds. With momentum clearly with Sestak, today could be the day that Pennsylvanians send their longest serving Senator packing. Here’s what that outcome would mean.

1. This cycle is anti-incumbent and anti-liberal. 

Many are claiming that both Democrats and Republicans are feeling the pressure of an anti-Washington sentiment, and while that’s true, it should be noted that “incumbent” isn’t the only dirty word this election cycle. Fiscally liberal members – be they Republicans (look at Bennett of Utah and Crist's troubles in Florida) or Democrats (Corzine and Scott Brown challenger Martha Coakley) face real challenges to stay alive. Case in point: fiscally conservative Democrats aren’t facing the same troubles as a David Obey would be.

Specter is evidence of this anti-liberal incumbent revolt. Voters in the Keystone State are exhausted with his embrace of big government, from the stimulus to the healthcare bill -- a decision that's causing him troubles with seniors. Pennsylvania has the second oldest population and Specter’s embrace of the takeover, which cuts billions from Medicare and will ultimately lead to rationing, has them petrified.

Watch the liberal media continue to chalk up any Democratic losses tonight and til Election Day up to an anti-incumbent movement when the focus is more about a repudiation of their agenda, and thus President Obama.

Read more here

Barack Obama will forever be known as the first black president. He’ll be remembered as the first president to speak to the Muslim world from a Muslim country. Many will reflect on his dependence on the teleprompter, and that he was the first President to have a blackberry, and third sitting President to win the Nobel Peace Prize. President Obama will have a lot of defining moments. And though he might be on his way out in two -- or even 6 -- years, long after he’s left the Oval Office, Elena Kagan, if confirmed, just might be Obama’s biggest, and most potent  legacy, making her vetting all the more critical.

The highest court in the land is responsible for some of the most dramatic policy outcomes in our country’s history. Now, more than ever before, we find key issues of importance front and center of the judicial branch and Elena Kagan could be the tipping point in their outcomes, like the fate of the sweeping, highly unpopular health care bill.

Eighteen states have already filed legal challenges through their attorney generals against Obama’s key initiative to date, the health care legislation, and five more states joined as recently as last week. The joint lawsuit led by Florida was filed on March 23 by mostly Republican attorney generals. It claims the sweeping reform of the $2.5 trillion U.S. health care system, jammed through by Democrats in the Congress after months of manipulation; nasty partisan fighting violates state-government rights in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments.

In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments making the fate of this giant legal challenge – the constitutionality of the health care bill – likely to end up at the door of the Supreme Court, thus on Kagan’s desk.

And what about immigration reform? With states like Arizona taking steps of their own to solve their undocumented alien crisis, and more states poised to follow suit, the question of whether or not Kagan will rule in favor of the Tenth Amendment is a confirmation hearing imperative. Already opposition groups have made clear they'll challenge the Arizona law, including Obama's Attorney General himself, Eric Holder. Under the Tenth Amendment, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

It could be years before we see comprehensive reform on immigration, but depending on the final product, the issue is likely to make its way to the highest court in the nation. Kagan, again, could determine the fate of the ruling and set precedent.

Besides issues on health care, immigration, and states’ rights, expect Kagan to have influence over game changing eminent domain cases where the government has been involved in power grabs with people’s land. The court is also likely to face cases on regulation of the Internet, military issues like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, campaign finance, potential environmental decisions, the Fairness Doctrine, religious freedom and perhaps most importantly -- the federal government and the War on Terror. All of these are areas where President Obama or his administration will have weighed in, making them part of his legacy.

Thanks to a complacent, love struck media, our current president wasn't tested and vetted as he should have been. Like Obama, Kagan doesn't have a robust paper trail so we are unable to discern her judicial temperament and philosophy because she’s never been a judge. That's why it’s terribly important that she gets a good grilling, under very rigorous questioning in the Senate.

Elections have consequences, and Supreme court nominees embody these consequences. At only 50 years old, a Justice Kagan, is likely to stay on the highest court for the next 30-40 years and will rule on the most serious and sensitive decisions in our country's history – making her appointment pivotal -- and her future ultimately Obama’s potential past.