Coaches aren’t on the field, but they get credit for success.  Why the double standard from the Right?

If you’re wondering why America is no longer able to make even the most basic, common-sense decisions, there are two simple answers: extreme partisanship and willful hypocrisy.

Forget the desire to seek truth.  Many on the Right and Left are simply incapable of seeing the real picture, even if it’s smacking them in the face.  And those rare souls who do rise above partisanship to tell the truth are viciously discredited by their own, branded “traitors” and “sellouts.”

The incessant calls for “bipartisanship” are nothing more than pure campaign posturing. Once the election is over, the personal attacks begin anew, demonizing adversaries for miniscule partisan advantage.

Nowhere is this more apparent that the Right’s nonstop barrage against President Obama for his “politicizing” the killing of Osama bin Laden --- an attack, by the way, that will backfire as it repels swing voters from the GOP and pushes the Prez closer to re-election.

There are countless articles, commentaries and videos (including a particularly apalling one from Veterans For  A Stronger Future) that bash Obama on everything related to the bin Laden raid.  Outside of throwing red meat to the far Right (who obviously aren’t voting for Obama anyway), this misguided strategy is destroying whatever credibility the Right may have had. Some common themes we are hearing include:

-Obama deserves absolutely no credit for the raid that killed bin Laden;

-It is George W. Bush who really should be praised for nailing bin Laden (as Obama did nothing at all to contribute to the hunt --- he was just a lucky guy who happened to be on watch when the terrorist was located);

- It is the Navy SEAL’s who deserve one hundred percent of the credit, as they are the “real heroes” who did the job (see Point One);

-The President never thanked the SEALs or the intelligence community, instead taking all the accolades for himself because he used the word “I” in a few sentences;

-A Republican would never politicize anything about high-profile killings, war, or terrorism --- especially in front of a foreign leader.

Yeah, good thing George Bush never politicized Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror, the capture of Saddam Hussein, WMD’s, or anything related to national security.  And not to throw a bone to the conspiracy theorists, but since national security/war on terror was, literally, the only issue in which Bush and the Republicans held an advantage over the Democrats (after 2004), didn’t it seem like there was a “non-specific color-coded heightened terror alert” every other week, especially right before elections? 

Of course Bush politicized security matters. How many videos do you need to show the truth?  Just Google it.  And, for the record, Bush even politicized the terror issue in front of a foreign leader (the Iraqi Prime Minister).  But to those on the Right, those things are simply not acknowledged, conveniently overlooked, or hypocritically justified.  Which is why they can’t make inroads winning the hearts and minds of The Great American Middle.

Speaking of hypocrisy, please explain how Bush should be credited with the bin Laden killing (he put the intel apparatus in place, we are told), but Obama should not. A) Most intelligence analysts uniformly agree that the search for bin Laden actually decreased under Bush, as assets were pulled from that mission and re-directed to Iraq, Afghanistan and the general war on terror. B) Obama made the search for bin Laden a priority.  C) He ordered the raid. D) He is Commander-in-Chief. Bush had eight years to get the job done, and didn’t.  Obama did. What am I missing?

And because The President wasn’t physically carrying a machine gun into the compound means that he had nothing to do with the raid? So a coach should get no credit when he guides his team to a Super Bowl because he isn’t on the field? Parents don’t deserve recognition for their children’s academic performance because they aren’t in the classroom taking the test? CEO’s shouldn’t be lauded when profits are up because they weren’t on the widget line?

And would the same “Obama wasn’t physically there” litmus test be used if Bush had been in office when bin Laden was killed? Not a chance.

Make no mistake about one thing. If U.S. personnel were killed or captured, or the helicopters crashed into a Pakistani house, you can bet the ranch the President would have been crucified by the Right for incompetence.  You can’t have it both ways.  He either owns the mission or he doesn’t.

Were the SEALs courageous and competent? As always, yes. Are they unknown heroes?  You bet.  But let’s keep the emotion in check here.  We don’t live in a military dictatorship. We are led by a civilian president elected by the people; the military --- even the elite SEALs --- work for him. Period. The SEALs didn’t go in until expressly authorized by the President, and, while that decision now seems like a no-brainer, it was infinitely more complicated and risky than the general public will ever know. The nation (and civilized world) owes a debt a gratitude to the SEALs, and they deserve high honors for their precision work.  But without question, the bulk of the credit must go to their leader. 

And the President did, in fact, congratulate and heap praise not just on the SEALs, but on everyone who helped make the mission a success. Let’s not forget that the SEALs didn’t find bin Laden; without good intelligence agents, there wouldn’t have been a raid.

And for a President who doesn’t deserve credit, here’s a pretty big irony.  Barack Obama and his family will, for the rest of their lives, have a literal target on their backs from bin Laden supporters.  Paybacks are a bitch, and as we have learned firsthand, Muslim fanatics redefine “patience.” Obama will always wonder if his house will be car-bombed, or a person at a speaking engagement (post presidency) has a bomb strapped to his chest.  Or if his children and grandchildren are safe. For all the dangers the SEALs faced, they will never have those worries. When their missions end, they’re done.  Not so for the President.

For a guy whom the Right tags as anti-American and in bed with the Muslim community, ordering the assassination of radical Muslims’ ultimate hero doesn’t exactly fit that mold. 

                                                                                     *****

Obviously, the Right does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy.  It’s just more pronounced because Obama currently occupies the Big Prize.  It was no different when Bush was in charge, as the Left refused to give him credit when the Fort Dix Six were captured, avoiding a mass killing spree.

I was a consistent critic of W. (and by no means am I on the Left), yet I gave him total credit for that security victory, since it happened on his watch. Only fair, even though Bush did not physically participate in the operation.
Archive link: http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/home/item/222-the-“fort-dix-six”-is-all-about-illegal-immigration

Mitt Romney should, but won’t, have the guts to chide those who are attacking Obama for something that any President would do --- take credit for removing the most dangerous thug in the world from the living. Regardless of Obama’s stances on any other issues, the decapitation of al-Queda by whacking bin Laden stands as a mammoth achievement.

As Commander-in-Chief in the world’s most public job, Barack Obama will be receive the greatest amount of credit, and deservedly so.  And for anyone who doesn’t like that, one basic question: Would you rather have bin Laden still walking among us?

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Don’t Be Surprised If Romney and Gingrich Bow Out At The End

About the only job better than weatherman --- where you can get it wrong half the time and still remain employed --- is political pundit.  These guys make an art out of looking dumb, and doing so with authority.

In the last few years alone, we have been told that Obama had zero chance of beating Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney was sure to be the GOP nominee in 2008, and now, the President can’t win re-election because Romney will beat him.  That last prediction, of course, is predicated upon Romney winning the Republican nomination, which the pundit brain trust is now telling us is a done deal after Mitt’s victory in Florida.

But just as it wasn’t over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, as Blutarsky taught us in Animal House, this race is far from over.

And the most comedic part is that the “experts” don’t even know it.  If they just took a walk outside their ivory towers, they would discover that there are still many elections --- not coronations --- yet to come, and that Newt Gingrich hasn’t been vanquished. 

This is not to say that Romney won’t end up the winner.  In fact, that’s a good bet since he has money and organization advantages over Gingrich. But to say it’s all but over is simply foolish.

Cutting through the pundits’ white noise, it is worth looking at where the race really stands. Never before have there been three different winners in the first three contests, so that alone should be a caution sign for traditional predictions. Mitt Romney has won two of the four contests, including the winner-take-all state of Florida, and yet the total number of delegates awarded so far amounts to just five percent.

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, for various reasons, cannot win the nomination, but they can and will garner delegates, as many states award delegates on a proportional basis based on popular vote.

Without question, Gingrich will be in the hunt for the long haul. Following a disappointing fifth-place finish in New Hampshire, after which the “experts” wrote him off for good, he roared back to a thundering victory in South Carolina. In all likelihood, he will win a number of states on Super Tuesday, and in the contests that he doesn’t, will post strong second place finishes.

(There is another reason for Gingrich to stay in the race: the possibility that Romney will say or do something that would catastrophically implode his candidacy.  Mitt came close this week when he said “I'm not concerned about the very poor…You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus.” Such blunders run in the family, as his father, former Michigan Governor George, crushed his quite viable presidential aspirations by stating he was “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War.  The game was over the very instant he uttered that word.)

Short of a Romney implosion, Gingrich won’t win the nomination outright, but the impact of his candidacy could be substantially greater: he may deny Romney the prize.  If the three “challengers” to Romney can keep Mitt from attaining that “fifty percent plus one” number, it’s a whole new ballgame.

And while such a scenario was unthinkable to many pundits just a few weeks ago, it is becoming increasingly plausible.

An often overlooked but extremely important factor in determining the nominee is that many of the states have different legal rules concerning their delegates.  A handful of states, including delegate-rich Pennsylvania, do NOT require their delegates to commit for the candidate who won the state.  Put in layman’s terms, come convention time, delegates from the Keystone State can cast votes for any person they wish, whether or not the candidate won the state or even participated in the primary process.

Obviously, in normal election years, Party unity is assured because the nominee is determined early in the process.  But this year is anything but normal.  And there is precedent for delegates breaking ranks.

In 1980, George H.W. Bush handily won the primary election in Pennsylvania over Ronald Reagan.  The Reagan folks knew they weren’t going to win, so they pulled a coup by ensuring that the delegates elected were loyal to The Gipper. So despite Bush winning by 100,000 votes, Reagan emerged with roughly 70 percent of the state’s delegates morally committed to him.

Given that situation, a major concern for Romney is getting the right delegates to achieve the right majority.  But since Mitt has been running for President for five years, spent hundreds of millions in that endeavor, and still can’t come close to getting 50 percent of GOP primary voters, that might be a daunting task. 

While still a “long shot” scenario, don’t be surprised that, after all the states have voted, no one emerges a winner.  If neither Romney nor Gingrich can successfully make a deal with Paul or Santorum to acquire their delegates, the country may see two men who despise each other hold a joint press conference announcing that, for the good of the Party, they are withdrawing from the campaign and releasing their delegates.

And then it would become the Wild West. Backroom conventioneering would take on a life of its own, with countless deals being struck to choose the most unifying Republican ticket to take on Obama.

And who might top that list?  Well, put it this way. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie would do well to start using a treadmill. More than anyone else, Christie’s ability to tell it like it is, take no prisoners, and bulldog his way to success --- despite major Democratic majorities in the state assembly --- make him a Party favorite.  He is one of a very few who commands respect by the Establishment, rank-and-file grassroots activists, and Tea Parties alike.

Republicans, Democrats and Independents may not always agree with Christie, but they always know where he stands, and his speak-from-the-heart style is a breath of fresh air in a world of sound bites, talking points and focus groups.

Christie may have foreseen this scenario, possibly explaining why he declined to run in the brutal primaries. And for those who predict Christie as a Romney VP, forget it.  He is nobody’s Number Two, and almost certainly would not sign on to a meaningless ceremonial post when he could have, quite possibly, captured the top prize for himself had he wanted to do so.

Should Christie decline an offer made at a brokered convention, the list of frontline candidates grows relatively thin, but undoubtedly Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and, dare we say it --- Jeb Bush! --- would certainly be in play.

This scarcity of good candidates is testament to what happens when a political party refuses to build its bench with folks who actually believe in things, instead promoting those whose “turn it is.” Look no further than Bob Dole and John McCain. It’s pretty sad that in the election many Republicans are calling the most important in American history, the GOP can muster so few viable contenders.

No matter how it eventually plays out, the battle for the Republican nomination will go on for at least the next four months, and that’s a good thing. Despite the conventional wisdom as postulated by pundits that divisive primaries only serve to weaken the Party’s candidates and needlessly give an advantage to the opponent, the opposite is true. Combative and lengthy primaries make candidates stronger, sharper and better prepared for the rigors of a general election presidential campaign. Barack Obama proved that in his protracted battle with Hillary.

And given that Obama is in the driver’s seat to emerge victorious in November, a long primary season --- and even a brokered convention --- could be just what the doctor ordered to energize the Republican Party and unify what is now a very discontented base.

President Christie, anyone?

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

It's that time of year when Freindly Fire heaps praise upon those most deserving.

So in the spirit of consistency, the Biggest Winner of 2011, just like every year, is illegal immigrants. They are granted driver's licenses, free education - in some cases all the way to college - and free first-rate health care. Not only do they pose a national security threat, but a personal one, as many are criminals released back onto the streets because the government refuses to deport them. Their presence has forced the closure of hospitals, ripped jobs away from American workers, depressed wages and caused taxes to increase sharply.

And let's not forget that many illegals are voting in our elections. How's that for irony: foreigners deciding American elections. Maybe that’s why both Parties pander to illegals, including leading GOP candidates Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

And every time the illegals win, the American people lose.

Iran

For a country so incompetent that it took a quarter-century just to build a simple subway in its capital, and equally as long to construct the Tehran airport, Iran sure knows how to gain international attention. Year after year, Iran successfully extorts the West, and the U.S. continues to play the Iranians’ game. Now, Iran is threatening to cut off the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which one-sixth of the world’s oil supply passes.

And what does America do?  Prepare for yet another armed conflict --- with yet another Muslim country.  That would make Iran the eighth --- yes, eighth! --- Muslim nation the U.S. has attacked since the Clinton Administration --- truly a bipartisan debacle. Despite the insanity of this possibility, in which oil could spike to $200 per barrel and decimate whatever is left of the world economy, some talking heads continue advocating such military intervention. Going to war with random Middle Eastern oil nations isn’t sound foreign policy. It’s lunacy.

Here’s an idea. Maybe if we got off our duff and stopped kowtowing to radical environmentalists who offer no solutions, we could pursue energy independence with the virtually unlimited resources literally at our feet.  And guess what happens when we start producing $2 gasoline and diesel? We wouldn’t give a damn about Iran.  Or Iraq.  Or Libya. Or…

Rick Perry

Who’d have thought another Texas Governor could be so entertaining?  From taking 12 hours to come up with a response to Mitt Romney’s $10,000 bet, to shrinking the size of the government (apparently, we have only eight Supreme Court Justices and no Department of Energy), Perry has been in a class by himself.

Of course, not knowing the date of the election nor the correct voting age, while priceless, won’t help Perry stay in the race. But his significant campaign cash just might, which would undoubtedly provide more “Oops, I Did It Again” moments. So hats off to the only politician who could make George W. Bush look like Daniel Webster.  

Barack Obama

See “Rick Perry” above.  This election is the GOP’s to lose --- and they are well on their way to doing so.

Occupy Movement

Give credit where it’s due.  The Occupy Movement was able to dupe the media (admittedly, not a very hard thing to do) into providing nonstop coverage of…pictures of tents and filth. How newsworthy.

It was bad enough that Occupy had no organization, no spokesman, and absolutely no message.  But for the media to cover, night after night, lazy hippies who thought it cool to camp out, not work and get free things from idiots who thought it politically correct to patronize hobos was nauseating.

So incompetent was the Orgy --- I mean Occupy --- Movement that it took the media to inject its own rationale for why the “protests” were occurring --- income inequity. Well, here’s a newsflash: there is, and should be, income inequality. As in, the person waking up every day at 6AM to work a 12 hour day, should makes more money than a sloth looking for a handout. 

In the immortal words of The Big Lebowski: “Your revolution is over… Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did -- get a job, sir! The bums will always lose!”

Andy Reid

Despite commanding an uber-hyped team whose spectacular failure was surpassed only by the Phillies, the best three-quarter coach in football --- and the one who game after game commits bush league mistakes that an eighth-grade coach would never make --- will absolutely, put-it-in-the-bank-guaranteed be back leading the Philadelphia Eagles next season. Where he leads them is equally predictable: not to a Super Bowl Championship.  Reid has simply been in Philadelphia too long, and has settled into a comfort level where winning The Big One, while nice, isn’t an imperative. He seems content with the moniker of being the winningest coach in franchise history along with all the other superlatives that don’t mean a bloody thing in a town that bleeds Eagle Green.

Reid has proven his value at turning around a franchise, but that is where his usefulness ends. The Eagles should, but won’t, bring in a closer to seal the deal and get the job done --- like Jon Gruden did with Tampa Bay. 

So Reid will win another season where his mediocrity will be on full display, and, this being Philly, will undoubtedly be making this list again next year for all the wrong reasons.

Archbishop Wood Football

Their season was full of confidence and hope, a fourth straight Catholic League title and a state championship in their sights. Yet Archbishop Wood stumbled in their opener, losing that crucial first game. Many teams would have folded, finding excuses as to why the season was slipping away (READ: 2011 Philadelphia Eagles). But Wood rebounded, and dedicated their efforts to the memory of former legendary coach Skip Duffy, who lost his battle with cancer in September.

And the rest is history. Wood rolled out fourteen straight wins, racking up average margins of 38 points in the regular season and 41 points in the playoffs, culminating in the total evisceration of perennial powerhouse Bishop McDevitt, 52-0 to win the State Championship.  In doing so, Wood has earned a place as arguably the best Class AAA football team ever.

Perhaps Andy Reid and Company should be taking notes from Wood --- not plays and calls, but the intangibles that always, always win Championships. Dick Vermeil’s character in the Vince Papale movie Invincible said it best. ”The team with character will find a way to beat a team with talent…great teams weren’t just playing for themselves. They played for a city. The people of Philadelphia have suffered…You are what gives them hope.”

And in times like these, hope is needed more than ever.  Congrats, Archbishop Wood for demonstrating what so many professionals have long ago forgotten --- that character still means something.

Freindly Fire’s Biggest Losers Of 2011 will appear tomorrow.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

After his victory in 1980, Ronald Reagan chose the best, the brightest --- and make no mistake --- the most politically powerful to fill his cabinet. In an acknowledgement to the Republican might of Pennsylvania (a state he won), he chose three cabinet officials from the same county! Drew Lewis (who fired the striking air traffic controllers), Alexander Haig, and Richard Schweiker all hailed from Montgomery County.

In 1994, Pennsylvania was the most Republican state in the nation in terms of elected officials.  The GOP controlled the two U.S. Senate seats, the Governorship, the state legislature, all statewide row offices, and a majority of the congressional delegation. 

And in 2010, five congressional seats flipped to the Republicans, Tom Corbett trounced his gubernatorial opponent, the State Senate remained in GOP hands, and Republicans seized control of the State House with a ten-set majority.

Yet the biggest prize of all has eluded the Party for a quarter-century: a win for their presidential candidate.  Not coincidentally, the southeastern counties, home to nearly half the state’s population, have trended Democratic in that timeframe, with the former-GOP strongholds of Delaware and Montgomery Counties abandoning Republican nominees since 1988.

So it’s no surprise that leading Republicans, including Governor Corbett and Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, have come up with a plan to change how the state’s presidential electoral votes are awarded. Under their proposal, one electoral vote would be allocated for each congressional district a presidential candidate wins, as opposed to the current system, which is winner-take-all.

We’ll get to the real reason behind this naked political ploy, but first, let’s look at why the plan is a bad idea:

1) It politicizes the election process in an unprecedented way: Congressional districts would be gerrymandered like never before, drawn by the Party in power to suit its candidate’s needs in order to win the most districts.  This is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they designed the system, and most definitely puts the politicians ahead of the people.  It’s supposed to be the other way around.

2) It sets the stage for the system to constantly change: Although labeled a plan offering “electoral fairness,” it is being pushed simply because the GOP now controls Harrisburg and wants to bolster the Republican nominee’s electoral total any way it can.  Remember, the Democrats need Pennsylvania to win the White House, whereas the Republicans do not.

And since this change would be enacted by simple legislation, where does it end?  If Pennsylvania Democrats regain control in 2014, and a Republican occupies the White House, would we then see the winner-take-all system come back into play?  The electoral system in constant flux would only breed resentment and confusion, which could not come at a worse time.

3) It’s a wash on the national level: If enacted nationally, this system would ultimately be a wash, or even negatively impact the GOP. For example, Republicans would no longer win all of Texas’ 38 votes, perhaps only taking 25. Taking it even further, it is possible that in 2004, despite George W. Bush winning 31 states, he might have lost the election, since he only won the Electoral College with 16 votes to spare.

4) The system works as it is: It is not easy to pigeonhole the American people’s voting preferences. For example, Montana and North Dakota, both Republican states in most presidential elections, have Democratic Senators, as did solidly Republican Georgia a short time ago.  Indiana, with a GOP governor and legislature, had voted for Democratic for president only once since 1940 --- but that changed in 2008. Obama also won the normally-GOP states of North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Missouri.  Yet the Republicans are darn close to winning the traditionally progressive states of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin.  Bottom line: Voting patterns are not set in stone. The more competitive elections are, the more engaged the electorate.  The Electoral College works, so why mess with a good thing?

5) It all comes down to having good candidates who can articulate a message with charisma and passion. When Republicans instead coronate those whose “turn it is,” they get clobbered.  Bob Dole and John McCain are prime examples.  Neither had any business being the presidential nominee.  Not much has changed, as the GOP is in total disarray heading into what many Republicans call the most important election in history. The truth is, there are only two candidates capable of winning the nomination, both of whom carry tremendous baggage.  Yet McCain, the Party’s patriarch, just stated, ““We have the deepest bench in the Republican Party now that I have ever seen.” And that says it all.

On the state level, it’s much of the same, as Lynn Swann and Mike Fisher proved all too well. 

Which leads us to the The Pennsylvania story.

                                                                            *****

The GOP’s demise in the Keystone State can be attributed to two things: the lack of quality candidates and the colossal failure of leadership.  Fix both, and they win the state --- and the White House.  But the electoral system shouldn’t be changed just because the entrenched Business As Usual GOP hierarchy is the poster boy for incompetence.

The combination of running untenable candidates, valuing insider contracts and solicitorships over issues and choosing laziness over grunt work has caused it to lose huge chunks of the political landscape.

There has been little effort to groom candidates, and absolutely no initiative to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-million vote deficits.  As a result, the Party is in the strange position of sitting on massive gains from the tidal wave of 2010, but taking a pass on challenging vulnerable Democratic Senator Bob Casey. The GOP leadership doesn’t seem to realize that the big swings in 1994 and 2010 were not mandates for the Republicans per se, but a demand that real solutions be enacted to solve monumental problems. 

When Republicans talk about the issues, they win --- and win big.  President Reagan innately understood that, which is why he won 44 and 49 states, respectively, with massive Electoral College victories.  Even George H.W. Bush learned that lesson, as he too galloped to victory with 40 states and 426 electoral votes.

                                                                           *****
Thirty years ago, when someone moved into the Philadelphia suburbs, they were always greeted (usually within a week) by the local Republican committeeman. The conversation went something like this, “Oh, I see you moved here from the city. Well, we have safer streets, better schools, and lower taxes --- because our municipality and county are run by Republicans.  Here is a voter registration card…I’ll be back in a few days to see how we can work together.”

That recruiting effort built the Party into a well-oiled machine, and the county organizations could be relied upon to deliver for national and statewide candidates.

But all that ended, and with it, the GOP’s dominance. Issues gave way to power trips and petty infighting, the Party lost its energy and brand. Now, door-knocking and personal visits are virtually non-existent. And the numbers illustrate that failure: in the largest Republican wave since 1946, neither Tom Corbett nor Pat Toomey won Delaware or Montgomery County. Given that the GOP isn’t making the necessary changes, it’s a good bet that trend will continue, with Obama and Casey again winning the state.

Republican woes aside, letting the genie out of the bottle by fundamentally altering the hallowed electoral system established by our Founding Fathers --- one that has served us so well --- for short-term political gain is anathema to everything uniquely American.

The folks pushing this change should look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are truly the leaders they purport to be.  If so, they should abandon this foolhardy plan and seize the day, winning the hearts and minds of the electorate the old-fashioned way --- through hard work.

The Founding Fathers knew a thing or two about how government works best.  Honoring them by not punting a good thing is the least we should do.

An accredited member of the news media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist,
television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news
bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest
cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania.

Freind's column, "Freindly Fire," appears nationally in Newsmax and regionally in
Philadelphia Magazine's Philly Post.  It is also published regularly in a number
of the state's largest newspapers, including The Delaware County Daily Times, Chester
County Daily Local, Norristown Times Herald, Pottstown Mercury and Bucks County Courier
Post. Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states.

His work has been referenced in numerous other publications including The Wall Street
Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' bestseller
"Catastrophe."

Despite scandal and a stagnant economy, he was surging in the polls as the election neared. Against the odds, he had gained enough momentum that victory was within his grasp.

But in the span of one televised debate, a gaffe sealed his fate. Gerald Ford, President of the United States at the height of the Cold War, adamantly stated that the countries in Eastern Europe were free of Soviet domination.  Ballgame over. (But there was a silver lining. Had Ford won, Ronald Wilson Reagan would never have been President).

In 1972, Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie’s campaign for the presidency immediately imploded when he cried during a speech in front of the offices of the Manchester Union Leader, claiming that the paper’s editor unfairly criticized his wife.

And in 1967, a leading Republican presidential contender saw his hopes crushed after saying he was “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War. The otherwise very smart man who said that?  George Romney, father of current candidate Mitt.

The point? At any given time, especially in the world of 24/7 news coverage, a major gaffe can sink an otherwise strong candidate.  So the fact that many Republicans are already writing the President’s political obituary a year out from what will be a close election is not just naïve, but political stupidity.

And it will be a close election.

In addition to the billion dollar war chest the President will have, the most important aspect that commentators and politicians are missing is that the popular vote --- and by extension most polls --- are meaningless.

The only thing that matters is getting 270 electoral votes, and Obama already has, at a minimum, 164. And when you add the states he will likely win, including electoral prize Pennsylvania, which hasn’t voted Republican in 24 years, that number rises to 224 --- just 46 shy of victory.
Is the President’s road difficult? Absolutely.  The economy is in shambles with no possibility of a recovery until an energy policy is instituted, and that simply isn’t going to happen anytime soon. 

Bank failures continue, homes are still being foreclosed at an alarming rate, inflation is rising, and companies not only aren’t hiring (let alone expanding), but are shedding jobs and closing doors.  Merck is laying off 13,000, while Bank of America is jettisoning 30,000 --- and that’s just two companies.  Job loss and uncertainty are so commonplace now that the nine percent unemployment rate has become the new norm. America is fast becoming a suburb of France.

And that doesn’t bode well for an incumbent.

So while it is a good bet that Obama will not be re-elected, the “put-it-in-the-bank” GOP mentality can only work to the President’s advantage.  A look at the recent special election for disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner’s seat in New York City tells the story.

A Republican won the seat for the first time since 1920.  Impressive? Yes.  Good for the President’s Party? No.  A harbinger for Obama’s re-election chances? Absolutely not.  But the long-lasting impact of the GOP win? Zero.

For the very few able to step outside of the ridiculous spin zone, a few things are obvious about that race:

1) The Republican winner will either be bounced out next year, or will be re-districted out of Congress.

2) While good for the Republican caucus’ organizational votes, does anyone really think Congressman Bob Turner will vote as a true Republican in an extremely liberal district? 

3) Voters knew the world was watching, and many voted Republican as a public rebuke to Weiner’s extremely salacious behavior.  They did their job, but it will be back to business as usual next year.

4) Many of the Jewish voters wanted to send the President a message that they were displeased over his position regarding Israel. But does anyone really believe they will abandon the President in the general election?  Not a chance.  Yet some political insiders have even suggested that New York state might be in play electorally (as well as states like Maryland).  That thinking is just so out there that I can’t even come up with an appropriate sarcastic response.  Optimism is great, but what’s next? The Iranians holding hands and singing Kumbaya with us? Entertaining as it is, let’s stick with reality. 

5) The Democratic candidate was a boring, uninspiring hack. Which leads us to the next principle in politics: it usually helps to have good candidates.

Barack Obama has certainly not been an effective or popular President.  His policies of Big Government are based on academic theories that simply do not work in the real world, especially in a market-driven economy.  His advisers don’t have a clue, and the Administration keeps going back to the same old playbook that never worked particularly well. The results (although not all his fault) speak for themselves.

That said, he is a great campaigner.  And make no mistake. Running for President and being President are two totally different things.

While Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry are formidable challengers, neither has been battle-tested in the fire of a presidential general election.  Maybe it will be enough in 2012 for candidates just to have an “R” next to their names. Sometimes that is all that’s needed, but that should never be a strategy, and is no guarantee for success.

For proof, look at the 2010 election --- the largest Republican tidal wave since 1946. Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell got be-witched in a lopsided loss, Nevada’s Sharron Angle lost to the unpopular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid despite the state having the highest unemployment rate in the nation, and Alaska’s Joe Miller lost to incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the general election --- by a write-in campaign.  All three were bad candidates, and none of the races were close.

Trite as it sounds, Republicans would be wise to focus on the issues, ignore the spin and stop deluding themselves that 2012 will be a walk in the park. An example of how fickle the political winds are?  Just four months ago, in another New York special election, the Democrats won a long-held Republican seat.  In full spin mode, the Dems declared it a monumental setback for the Republicans and a validation of the President’s vision.

That spin was wrong too.

What these last several election cycles show is that voters, more volatile than ever, are fed up with scandal, bickering and meaningless 30 second sound bites.  They want vision.  They want solutions.  They want action.  And they will reward whomever can best articulate their ideas in a bold, commonsense way --- and kick out those who don’t.

Bottom line: while current conditions certainly favor the Republicans, it is entirely too early to put 2012 in the record books for the GOP.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the President’s political death are greatly exaggerated.  If the GOP refuses to recognize that, they do so at their own peril.

An accredited member of the media, Chris Friend is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Business As Usual Still Holds In Critical Pennsylvania

“This is the most important election in American history…if we don’t beat Obama and take back the U.S. Senate, the country won’t survive…”
Such is the rallying cry of many Republicans across Pennsylvania and the nation. 

Several things come to mind:

1) The United States will “survive,” even if Barack Obama is elected to a second term. Sure, more spending and bigger government will push the country further down the wrong path, but the GOP would do well to tone down the sky-is-falling rhetoric and concentrate on the actual issues. And for the record, it’s a pretty good bet that America, the most powerful nation the world has ever known, is strong enough to survive a liberal President for a term or two.  If one man really can “destroy” the nation, the ballgame was over long ago.

2) The electorate has shown itself to be extremely volatile, with huge swings in the last three elections.  Those power shifts were not mandates for either side, but a message for Washington to solve the nation’s economic problems.

That trend looks to continue in 2012, and as of now, seems to favor the GOP. In such a “wave,” some candidates will win solely because they have an “R” next to their name. That type of “right place, right time” luck should never be a strategy for victory, but in several key races, that appears to be the GOP plan.

                                                                                   *****
What does it say about the Republican Party that, heading into what should be a banner year, it has only two top-tier presidential candidates (and as of two weeks ago, just one)?

And in the all-important electoral swing state of Pennsylvania, there remains no frontrunner to take on vulnerable freshman senator Bob Casey? As a matter of fact, not only isn’t there a “big name” challenger, there is only one announced candidate, only months before the April primary. (Marc Scaringi, a former Rick Santorum staffer).

While it’s still feasible for candidates to enter either race, it is the fourth quarter, and the clock is running. 

The Iowa caucuses take place in just five months, barely enough time for a late entrant to organize a grassroots ground-game and raise the huge sums necessary to compete. So short of a nationally known figure with a solid track record jumping into the fray (which pretty much comes down to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie), the GOP field is set.

Two candidates? That’s it? In the “most important” election in history to many Republicans, it’s come down to a mere two?  (Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney). 

And before the partisans cry foul about that analysis, let’s be honest about the field.  Congressman Ron Paul has the most loyal supporters, and more than anyone, shapes the debate.  But his numbers will stay the same, not nearly enough to win the nomination.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, while also having passionate supporters, was dealt a severe blow by Perry’s entry, as many Republicans looking for the “conservative with the best chance of winning” have defected. And neither Paul nor Bachmann have history on their side, as only one congressman has ever been elected president (Garfield).

The rest of the field consists of has-beens and also-rans. None can win and labeling them “second-tier” is being entirely too generous.

At least there were four top-tier candidates in 2008 (McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson) with guys like Paul and former Congressman Tom Tancredo nipping at their heels.  But to only have one up until recently begs the question: of all the Republicans nationwide, how is it possible to have so few viable candidates?

                                                                                *****

On the state level, it’s even worse.

Scaringi is a solid candidate with a firm grasp of the problems facing America, and, truth be told, would be a good U.S. Senator.  And if he wins the nomination by default because no other candidates step up, he may just be that senator if anti-incumbency fever runs high in Pennsylvania. (Although it is important to note that no Casey --- father or son --- has ever lost a general election).

But he has no name recognition, little money and hails from a sparsely-populated area of the state.

So where is everyone else?

Oh, the Party hierarchy is working hard, doing everything in its power to recruit a wealthy businessman who could self-fund the race, which is codespeak for them not wanting to do their job. Their qualification for Party support? “How big of a check can you write?”

To the business-as-usual establishment, policy positions don’t matter, nor does damn near anything else.  Irrelevant is one’s knowledge of the issues, and how well that person can articulate those positions. 

How long have you been a Republican, and how closely aligned to the GOP platform are you? Can you relate to the voters? Will you run the campaign the way it must be run to win --- aka visiting all 67 counties in the dead of winter? And are you a candidate of good character?

All secondary to the Party establishment. The only thing that matters is the size of your wallet.  And that is a major reason why Bob Casey, despite plummeting approval numbers, still maintains the advantage.

Several months ago, this author wrote a column stating that the GOP had no frontrunner to challenge Casey, and was roundly criticized by the same folks who are now scrambling to find a viable candidate.

Some things never change.

And why is that? 

Because the GOP, both nationally and in Pennsylvania, too often choose candidates not on merit --- as in, who can best defeat the Democratic opponent ---, but instead, on whose “turn” it is or who can fund the race.  In the mold of choosing Bob Dole and John McCain, Pennsylvania’s nominees may look great to Party insiders, but fare dismally when put before the voters. 

There has been little effort to groom candidates for the future, and absolutely no push to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-a-million vote deficits.  So now the Party is in the strange position of sitting on massive gains --- having won a U.S. Senate seat (Toomey), Governor (Corbett), and winning back the State House (a ten seat majority) --- but potentially taking a pass on the Casey seat, which could well be the deciding vote as to which Party controls that legislative body.

You reap what you sow, and the critical harvest is upon the GOP.

The biggest irony is that a strong senate candidate could help put Pennsylvania back in the “red” column nationally, as the state is still in electoral play (Bush lost by only two points in 2004).  And while Republicans can lose Pennsylvania and still win the White House, the same is not the case for the Democrats.  Take the Keystone State away from Obama, and you send him packing.  It’s that simple.

But with scant Republican leadership in Pennsylvania, it’s not a good bet that will happen. Incumbents don’t usually lose unless they’re challenged by viable, first-tier candidates.

With Rick Perry now in the race, Obama is sweating.  But Bob Casey is playing it cool, thankful the GOP is acting like his biggest campaign supporter.

An accredited member of the media, Chris Friend is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

He can’t win.  He’s not serious.  He’s only talking about running for President to satisfy his never-satiated ego. And of course, he’s doing it to boost ratings for his reality show, Celebrity Apprentice.

So say the political pundits who, as we all know, are wrong more than the weatherman.

So let’s take a look at a Trump candidacy.

First things first.  The entire endeavor is irrelevant if the last aforementioned point is true.  Obviously, if his TV show returns for another season, it’s an instant show-stopper for Trump’s political quest.

If, however, he shocks the political world by genuinely committing himself to the Republican primary, the GOP field will go on life-support as it collectively suffers a massive heart attack.  More than any other individual, with the exception of New Jersey’s firebrand Governor Chris Christie (who states he is not running), Donald Trump has the ability to instantly alter the dynamics of the race. His candidacy would dominate national headlines to such a degree that his rivals could find the cure for cancer and establish world peace --- and no one would notice.

And anyone who believes that scenario is overstated hype needs only phone Barack Obama, who would begrudgingly concur. After all, it was Trump --- and Trump only --- who forced Obama to address the birth certificate issue.  Irrelevant is whether the “birther” issue has legitimate merit or is a ludicrous political argument.  The fact is that Trump utilized his star power to make the President of the United States respond directly to him, despite not even being a candidate. That display of raw power can only be dreamed of by every other GOP hopeful.

But Obama had his “payback,” making Trump the butt of his jokes at the annual correspondents’ dinner (as did comedian Seth Meyers).  Clearly, that was the biggest compliment the billionaire could receive, since being the focal point of such a prestigious event (where Trump was in attendance) simply would not have happened if Trump wasn’t a real threat.

Not surprisingly, the “joke candidate” --- as Karl Rove labeled Trump --- has also come under withering attacks from Republican rivals.

Translation: to the people who matter, Donald Trump is being taken very seriously.

But questions remain:

Is that momentum sustainable?  Can Trump exercise the necessary discipline to remain viable under the world’s brightest spotlight? Will he adapt to politics, infinitely more brutal than business?  And perhaps most important, will he instinctively know when to take a backseat to the counsel of experienced political consultants --- and when to overrule them when he thinks they are wrong? 

Hard to tell.

But if any political “novice” can overcome those challenges, it is Trump.

He is not only used to the media spotlight, but has actively courted it for decades. As a result, he is at home in front of the cameras, having honed his skills to discuss issues off-the-cuff.  Of course, up until now, the subject matter has always been that with which he is most familiar: business, real estate, casinos and entertainment.

It is a different ballgame entirely for presidential candidates, who are expected to speak intelligently on…everything. How a candidate handles questions on issues with which he is unfamiliar can make or break him in an instant.  And without a doubt, Trump’s rivals would love nothing better than to set him up in this regard, relishing the opportunity to send the flamboyant new kid on the block to the political graveyard for having the audacity to enter “their” world.

That’s a strategy with merit, since Trump’s publicity is a double-edged sword.  Just as his stock soars when making positive headlines, any major misstep will be seized upon, with a cacophony of calls discrediting Trump as nothing more than a publicity hound without the experience necessary to be President.

But the single biggest threat to Trump’s viability is being overly “handled” by advisors. Sarah Palin fell from grace during the 2008 campaign because she wasn’t allowed to be herself, instead being remodeled as someone else.  She was only able to recover that lost image after the election.

Trump’s biggest “trump” card is that he is Donald Trump.  No rival comes close to matching his charisma and his ability to articulate issues.  Whether taking on Congress, the Chinese or the Middle Eastern oil nations --- without the need for a script or teleprompter --- Trump is increasingly perceived as a man who will back up words with action, based on his track record in business and the fact that he isn’t financially beholden to anyone.

That type of bold, take-no-prisoners vision is exactly what Americans are seeking.  While they will not always agree with him, knowing where a leader stands and having confidence that he will keep his word are the hallmark issues that trump all others in a presidential race.

So it’s only fitting that in a decade of unprecedented electoral surprises, Round One in the Republican primary goes to Donald Trump.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and television commentator who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

It's that time of year again when Freindly Fire heaps praise upon those most deserving. You probably aren't going to find these winners on the lists of typical media outlets, most of which bow at the altar of political correctness.

The Biggest Winner of 2010, as is the case every year, goes to none other than illegal invaders, all 20 million of them. Year after year, they continue to win everything. They are handed driver's licenses, free education - in some cases all the way to college - and free first-rate health care. Most appallingly, their freedom exists because of our government's non-existent efforts to deport them. Their presence has forced the closure of hospitals, taken jobs from American workers, depressed wages and caused taxes to sharply increase. And let's not forget that many illegals are voting in our elections. How's that for irony: foreigners deciding American elections. And every time the illegals win, there is an even bigger loser. Us.

Michael Vick and the Canine Community

As quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, Vick has played spectacularly well, good enough to hide the team’s considerable shortcomings and earn the Birds the Division crown.  He is often mentioned as a leading MVP candidate, and many experts predict he will lead his team to the Super Bowl.

Which is all an unexpected pleasure, given that Vick was in jail not that long ago for executing losing canines in his dog-fighting operation. Given a reprieve by the League, he was the Eagle’s third-string QB last season, and he started this one as the backup.  He got his shot though, and, made the most of it.  Perhaps most noteworthy, he never used his numerous injuries as a crutch when the team lost, and has demonstrated more leadership in one season than former-quarterback Donovan McNabb showed in his entire, lackluster career.

Is Vick truly remorseful about the dog killing, or sorry only that he got caught? Tough to say, but second chances are what America is all about, and, for the most part, he has kept himself out of trouble.  With dogs everywhere breathing easier (actually, breathing at all), and Vick on the right track, he is definitely the most unexpected winner this year.

Governor Ed Rendell

Ok, not really.  Rendell’s eight-year tax-and-spend agenda, combined with widespread conflicts of interest throughout his Administration (some say pay-to-play) has driven Pennsylvania off the financial cliff, leaving a $5 billion deficit debacle for incoming Governor Tom Corbett to fix. And it’s been three years and counting since his promised interview with “Freindly Fire” --- making that the only media entity with which he refuses to speak.  I wonder why.

But fair is fair, and Rendell could not have been more correct when he hammered the NFL for canceling the Sunday night football game in Philadelphia because of a snowstorm.  Not a two-foot storm of the century, mind you, but an 8 inch “weather event” that would have made an outdoor football game one to remember. The roads were drivable, subway trains were operational, and the fans would have shown up in force --- loving every minute of it.  They do it in other places just fine --- Green Bay, Chicago and New England, to name a few.  But now, Philadelphians are officially considered pansies.

The reality is that the League saw an opportunity to test market Tuesday Night Football.  As with most things, the decision was rooted in money.  But it was done so at the expense of the last real sport in America, where players gut it out with broken bones instead of running to the disabled list because of a hangnail.  In many ways, the game’s cancellation reflects what America has become: soft and wimpy, offended by everything and decisive in nothing. It’s how we run business, operate government, wage war, and yes, play football. The pioneering, tough-as-nails spirit that made us unique is all but gone.

Rendell labeled the NFL’s action the “wussification” of America.  Wrong first letter, Guv.

Congressman Joe Sestak

True, Sestak lost his bid for United States Senate, but he was unique among politicians. Here’s a guy who gave up the job security of a 100 per cent safe congressional seat to take on 30-year incumbent and Goliath of the Senate, Arlen Specter, in a long-shot bid. The entire Democratic Party power structure was against him, from Rendell to President Obama, thus ensuring very limited campaign money.  Yet he persisted in his mission, even turning down a reported job offer from the White House. And a funny thing happened along the way: he won the primary election.

But the more admirable trait of Sestak was that he never backed down from his core convictions.  Whether or not one agreed with him, he should be respected for standing his ground and not playing both sides or “moving to the middle” to appease the pundits. 

For any pol to do that is unusual, but it’s even more amazing in a year that saw a political wave running in the polar opposite direction of his beliefs.  To Sestak’s credit, in the best Republican year since 1946, he ran to the left of Barack Obama, favoring bigger government, higher taxes, more stimulus and expanded national healthcare.  And with the courage of his convictions, he ran towards those ideas, not away, as the vast majority of Democrats did.

Voters are craving more leaders committed to their ideals, whether Right or Left.  They may not always agree with those people, but they respect knowing where such leaders stand.  Unfortunately, such courage is in short supply.

China

The global recession is wreaking havoc on America, but China continues to grow at an unprecedented rate.  Why?  Because they put themselves in a position to win no matter what transpires, assuming that political will in America doesn’t raise its head.  And since there’s a fat chance of that happening, China’s push toward domination continues.

Taking advantage of its favorable trade deals with the U.S. (READ: bad for us), and benefitting from America’s business-killing tax rates (highest in the world), China is advancing itself with state of the art infrastructure --- such as the world’s fastest train, biggest hydro-electric dam, and 25 nuclear power plants under construction ---, and a first-rate military that not only boasts quantity but quality.

If the dollar stays (relatively) strong, China’s boom will continue as its manufacturing expands.  And if the dollar plummets, China, while taking a slight hit in the value of the considerable U.S. debt it holds, could well find itself a kingmaker by controlling the world’s reserve currency.

Blaming China for our woes makes for effective campaign commercials, but unless we start taking a hard look in the mirror very, very soon, we might as well invest in Rosetta Stone for one last financial hurrah, as its “How To Speak Chinese” will be the hottest seller in the USA since Rubik’s Cube.
 
Chris Christie and the Republican Party --- Sort Of

New Jersey’s Christie has accomplished more in one year than damn near all the other 49 governors combined.  And all it took was that elusive trait called “political will.” The Republican Chief Executive has successfully taken on all sacred cows, from public education to unions, bureaucrats to the entrenched political culture.  So effective has his brand of in-your-face reform been --- achieved with both legislative chambers being solidly Democratic ---, Christie’s star power is so bright that he is routinely mentioned as a presidential contender, and serves as a model for politicians nationwide, including Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett.  With Corbett and Christie as bookends in two powerhouse states, these law-and-order leaders may yet pave the way for how America gets itself back on track.

The Republican Party as a whole is a different story. 

The GOP would be wise to understand that the election was NOT a mandate for Republicans, as much as it was a protest…a shot across the bow of both Parties. Voters have grown increasingly irritated with the Business As Usual approach in Washington, Harrisburg and Trenton, and are demanding their elected officials focus on what the people want, not what some leaders think they need.

If they become the Party of No, expect the pendulum to swing back yet again.  People don’t want more of the status quo.

And with America more vulnerable than ever before, from its reliance on foreign oil to its economy --- with the dollar based on absolutely nothing of value --- the stakes have never been higher.  Will the GOP work with the President on his promises to expand nuclear energy and offshore drilling, enact further tax cuts and demand more teacher accountability?

The next year will tell, and if the Republicans --- and the President --- don’t play their cards right, they will end up on the nations’s Biggest Losers list.  And most definitely, neither can afford to be on such a list. 

Look for Freindly Fire’s Biggest Losers of 2010 column next week...

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

They say timing is everything.      

And they are right.

If not for perfect timing, and a near impossible confluence of events, Barack Obama would most certainly not be President.

But he is, and once again, timing has played a huge role in his life.

The question now is whether he possesses true leadership --- the internal fire that pushes a man to do great things against almost impossible odds --- to turn the largest environmental disaster in American history into one of the greatest opportunities ever to come before a President.

Will Obama have the strength and will to seize this opportunity? If so, he will, more than any other President, free this nation of its dependency on foreign oil, bolster the economy and substantially increase our national security.

*****

The BP oil spill has had tragic consequences, but none greater than the calls to stop drilling, and instead concentrate on “alternative” energy sources.

That would be a huge mistake.

As Freindly Fire noted in a 2008 column:

“Investing in alternative energy is important, to be sure…wind, hydro and solar power initiatives are key, as are battery and electric powered vehicles and machinery. But many of these technologies will require trillions of both public and private funding, and realistically, all are many years away from making a substantial difference. They are all longer-term solutions, and, to be honest, are unproven in how effective their widespread use will be….”

Fact is, we live in something called The Real World, where a tremendous amount of oil is used, with more and more consumed every year. That won't change, period.

So while “green” solutions are nice, black gold still rules the day.

The quicker we recognize that and focus our primary energies on domestic oil production, the better off we’ll be.

*****

Which national leader innately understands this? 

Would it be the oilman George W. Bush or his Halliburton-affiliated sidekick Dick Cheyney?  Or is it the patriarch of the Bush family, George Herbert Walker Bush?

None of the above.

Ironically, it is Barack Obama.

*****

The elder Bush signed the moratorium on offshore drilling.  His son left it in place for SEVEN years, despite having sizable majorities in both Houses of Congress.  Only after fuel costs skyrocketed to over $4.50/gallon did W. call for the lifting of the moratorium.

Too little, too late. And it never happened.

What could have prevented those crippling spikes at the pump?

Offshore drilling --- both off the continental shelves and in ANWR (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) --- and the construction of new refineries, given that the last one was built in 1976.

And what better time to have pushed it through than right after the September 11 attacks.

In addition to having a Republican congress and nearly 100% of the nation behind him, Bush had the world’s goodwill in his corner. 
Instead, this nation’s reliance on foreign oil --- which is a kind way of saying we are pumping petro dollars into the coffers of some who are hellbent on destroying us --- has only increased.

*****

Earlier this year, before the BP spill, Obama proposed that we expand our offshore drilling ventures, and freed up millions of acres of coastal water for exploration and development.  In addition, he called for an increase in nuclear power plants across America.

Since Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, that move took guts.

Most Democrats oppose both initiatives, and some of the Party’s most powerful constituencies, such as the environmental lobby, are stridently supporting their position with millions of dollars and votes.

Nonetheless, Obama pressed on, fighting for issues generally associated with Republicans.

The response from the GOP?   They attacked him.

And why?  Because, we were told, Obama doesn’t really believe in those things, but was only advocating them to score political points.

Give us a break.

If Republicans can’t stomach the idea of extending a hand to a man willing to engage them on one of THEIR issues, they don’t deserve America’s vote in November.

Their misguided attack strategy stems not from a fundamental difference with the President, but a cover-their-derriere mindset. They want to obscure their failure to push for offshore drilling when they had the votes to make it happen.

For those who believe the talking-head chatter about Barack Obama being a closet Muslim who wants nothing more than to weaken America, pushing for energy independence would seem an odd way to achieve that goal.

*****

The political reality is that it will be extremely difficult for the President to pass his offshore oil and nuclear power initiatives in this term.

The BP spill has weakened America’s resolve to push for more offshore drilling, especially along the mid-Atlantic and California coasts. House and Senate Democratic leadership are overtly hostile to Obama’s ambitions, and Republicans are as clueless as ever on the energy issue.

Nonetheless, if Obama has the tenacity to forge ahead and the political will to bring his ideas to fruition --- as he did with national health care, defying the predictions of virtually every political expert --- he will be catapulted to the top of the ranks of effective Presidents.

Desperate situations make for heroic acts. 

It’s time for the President and our Congress to finally step up to be heroes.  It’s time to drill our way to prosperity and security.

The survival of our nation depends on it.

On far too many occasions, the media gets a story wrong. Whether that stems from laziness, ignorance or incompetence --- or all three --- the people deserve better.

As the drama of Pennsylvania’s nationally-followed primary played out, two major stories emerged.

The media got only one right.

*****

First, the one they got wrong.

As Senator Arlen Specter was heading for defeat --- the end of an era --- at the hands of Congressman Joe Sestak, the prevailing sentiment was that this result somehow translated into a “message to Washington.” This was usually followed by commentary that it showed people were angry at the policies coming out of the nation’s capital.

People are angry, to be sure, but this race had nothing to do with that.  In fact, Sestak’s election, from a policy standpoint, was an affirmation of Barack Obama’s agenda.

Sestak --- an incumbent, by the way --- not only voted for bailouts, the stimulus, federal takeovers of industry, and national health care, but wants to go considerably further.  More taxes, more spending, more regulation, more bureaucracy --- flat-out, Sestak just wants more government.

Since he, like the President, believes government knows best, how is that, in any way, a “message to Washington” and a repudiation of the current political environment?

It’s not.

Remember that this was a Democratic primary election, and Joe Sestak’s positions appeal to the Party’s Leftist base. And why not? He is one of them.

We also heard that there was an anti-incumbent message, which, overall, is true. Specter fatigue was running high, given that he has been a senator for a third of a century. But even that was a smaller factor in his defeat.

This senate election became a referendum on whether Specter was an untrustworthy political opportunist due to his party switch last year. Sestak’s ad showing Specter, in his own words, justifying his switch because it would “enable me to be re-elected” was the turning point in the race.

And it certainly didn’t help Specter when TV ads showed him not only being embraced by Sarah Palin, but being called an “ally” who could be “counted on” by the Devil himself --- at least to the Leftists --- George W. Bush.

Specter had a major credibility problem, and Sestak had enough money to inform voters of that --- over and over again.

That’s the whole issue, plain and simple. How anyone can extrapolate anything else is just ridiculous.

You want a “message to Washington?” Look to Tea Party candidate Rand Paul’s stunning victory in Kentucky, or if Pat Toomey beats Sestak in the fall, but don’t look to the Sestak-Specter race.

*****

The story the media did get right was Barack Obama’s abandonment of Specter in his hour of need.  Of this, there is no dispute.

And make no mistake, Obama should --- and will --- pay for his callous, calculated and crass political decision.

After successfully wooing Specter to join his Party, and immensely benefitting from that switch (as Specter was THE decisive 60th vote in favor of the stimulus), Obama blatantly turned his back on his one-time ally, humiliating an against-the-wall Specter.

Why? Because the President put politics before principle.  Despite the fact that he gave his word ---in front of the entire nation --- that he would help Arlen in any way, Obama broke that promise.

Specter saw the election slipping away, and repeatedly implored the President to campaign in Pennsylvania for him.  But those calls were rebuffed. 

It makes no difference whether Obama’s appearance would have helped or hurt Specter.

That is completely irrelevant.

What matters is that the President --- our leader and supposedly a role model --- broke his word to save his own skin.  Or so he thinks.

Ironically, the very reason Specter went down --- lack of credibility --- will now haunt Obama as he hurriedly tries to pass his agenda before Republicans win a sizable number of congressional seats this fall.

“What’s that, Mr. President?  You want my vote on a controversial issue, and in exchange you’ll give me A, B, and C, and, geez, you’ll even campaign for me when I need you?” 

That question will be echoed repeatedly between now and November as the President advocates cap-and-trade, spending and tax increases,  Wall Street reform, internet regulation, and a host of other issues.

And you know what he’ll hear more often than not?

“Hmmm.  You know I love you, Mr. President.  The same way you told Arlen that you loved him.  But after you hung him out to dry when he needed you most, you can’t blame me for thinking that your promises are a bit hollow right about now.  And by the way, you’re not up for re-election this year.  But I am.  So don’t take this the wrong way, but don’t let the door hit you in the derriere on the way out!”

Obama’s calculated move of not stopping in Pennsylvania, while flying over it on election day, was viewed as a political gain.  Short-term, he may be right.  But in the long-term, which in this case is the next 6 months, his decision will backfire in a big way.

Give George Bush credit for doing one thing right (which is not an easy thing to do).  He gave his word that he’d go to the wall for members of his party facing tough election challenges. And he came through in a big way.  Despite the risk to his prestige and political capital, Bush crisscrossed the country stumping for his allies.  And he emerged a stronger leader because of it.

Barack Obama may be naïve in many policy matters, but he should have been smart enough to know the value of keeping his word, both personally and politically.

But he didn’t. And he will suffer the consequences.

Want the most fitting possibility? Specter could actively campaign against, and attempt to derail, Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination.
After all, he voted against her before as Solicitor General, and now he has nothing to lose.

Literally.

And for that, he can partially thank Barack Obama.

Aren’t paybacks hell?