I hope this is not true.  While this author believes firmly that there are no political messiahs and that no man is indispensable, Coburn is one of the few people on the Hill today (Democrat or Republican) who serves an important role.  He is the only credible and consistent opponent of crazed spending, and for that, he plays a critical role. 

Here is hoping that he sticks it out for another term. 

Zero- “That is why I believe we will defeat our enemies, because we’re on the better side of history.”

While it is nice to actually see the President acknowledge that the United States is morally “better” than the terrorists, but does the fact that I would feel much better about the President if he could bring himself to say that personal and economic liberty and democratic governence is the “right side of history.”

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/media_having_trouble_finding_right

Obama refused to interpret the gift as baiting, quipping later: “It was a nice gesture to give me a book, I’m a reader.”

That determination to bury old antagonisms was also present when Obama responded disarmingly to an hour-long opening speech by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, in which the former leftist revolutionary reviewed US action against Cuba including the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. “I’m grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” he told chuckling leaders.”

Thank you, Mr. President, for standing up for the reputations of our nation and people  against those mass murderering thugs.  I sleep much better at night knowing that you areout there burnishing our national reputation and standing up to tyrants and oppressors.

http://deadspin.com/5210563/mark-fidrych-found-dead-on-his-farm

While the partisan divide in the poll is striking, the most important trend identified in this article is the similarity of the numbers of the three baby boomer presidents listed: Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama. This should not be surprising, as all three of these leaders employed an ideological approach to the Presidency early in their administration. However, it does suggest that the idea, promoted by authors like historian Sean Willentz and others, that Obama’s election represents the switch to a new era of politics is overstated. From these numbers, it appears rather that the election of Clinton inaugurated an era of hyper-partisanship, a trend which has been augmented by the rigid political approach of the Bush administration and the reflexive radicalism of the Obama administration.

That Republicans have turned on the Obama administration so rapidly should be no surprise. His administration has repeatedly renounced their principles as obsolete, he has refused to engage their ideas in any meaningful way, and he has declared economic war on all productive members of society with his budget. He has made it abundantly clear in his economic policy that he seeks to destroy economic liberty and replace it with patronage and dependency. He has made it equally clear in foreign policy that he seeks to cede the United State’s superpower status in the hope of appeasing America’s critics. Is it any surprise that this has won him the antipathy of Republicans?

Although Obama promised a post-partisan America during the election, it seems that this is less of a priority to the President than transforming the United States into a homogenized and docile society. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary for Obama to achieve political hegemony by promoting divisions, driving wedges, and spurring jealousy. Post-partisanship, a noble goal placed in the service of an ignoble cause, has been jettisoned.

Some day, likely after the baby boomers have passed (FINALLY) from positions of influence, we will return to a less ideological era of government. Unfortunately, this era will likely not come until American’s are forced to confront the inevitable crises that the Bush and Obama administrations’ irresponsible spending will have provoked. For now, we can only hope that enough of America is left after the partisan era to put our society together again.

There is nothing I can add here beyond what the original poster said.

One of the key tenants of the Obama campaign was that he would make us safer through his deep knowledge of foreign policy. His flaccid response to North Korea’s provocation is not encouraging. As a result, I don’t see how one could argue that the United States is safer from North Korea today than we were before Obama initiated his “new approach.”