The Joke's On Them

Comedian Stephen Colbert will testify before Congress on Friday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration called "Protecting America's Harvest."

Why on God's green earth is a comedian testifying about immigration policy? How does telling jokes for a living qualify a person to be an expert on immigration?

Colbert will testify alongside United Farm Workers President Arturo S. Rodriguez to discuss the UFW's summer "Take our Jobs" campaign, in which the group invited U.S. citizens and legal residents to replace immigrant field laborers, according to a UFW press release.

Rodriguez appeared on "The Colbert Report" in July to discuss the campaign. During the interview, Colbert agreed to participate in the challenge after Rodriguez reported that only four people had signed up to work in the fields.

Oh, I see. The guy spent one day - one friggin' day - picking crops, and now he's an expert. No wonder congress is so clueless.

Then we have Jon Stewart.

Count Jon Stewart among the legion of frustrated supporters of President Obama.

Appearing on Fox News' The Bill O'Reilly show Wednesday, the liberal comedian said he thought Obama would do a better job when he voted for him in the 2008 presidential election.

"I think people feel a disappointment in that there was a sense that Jesus will walk on water and no you are looking at it like, 'Oh look at that, he's just treading water' … I thought he'd do a better job," said Stewart.

So Stewart equates obama with Jesus. How very typical of the leftist loonies who supported the loser-in-chief. Reminds me of the old joke about obama and Bush out in a boat. The boat sinks and the two walk on top of the water back to shore. The next day the headlines read "Obama walks on water! Bush can't swim."

Finally, for a more serious, but no less enjoyable, discussion of why obama and the dems are faltering, check out Ed Rollins' recent column.

The oldest rule in politics is to control your story.

What that means is that, if there are five weeks to go in an election, and your party -- meaning the Democrats -- is in big trouble, the narrative you want to tell voters is: "Why you should re-elect Democratic majorities."

I have been amazed over the past several weeks by how the White House has lost control of the story.

First everything was President Bush's fault. It was believable for a time early in President Obama's term, but soon people responded by saying, "So what? Fix it. It's your job!"

The next strategy was: "Look at all the wonderful things that Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid and I have done for you." The $850 billion stimulus, health care, the "cash for clunkers" car rebate program. Unfortunately for the White House, a majority of the voters disapproved of those programs and didn't think they worked.

Then we had the "don't give the keys back to the guys that drove the car into the ditch" strategy. That didn't quite work either.

Then the sidebar stories started stepping on the narrative.

We've learned in the last two weeks that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel may be getting off the sinking ship to go run for mayor of Chicago, Illinois. The mastermind who got most of the endangered members of Congress elected in 2006 and 2008 is saying "Adios guys. Chicago needs me."

Then last week some genius in the White House apparently got the idea, "Let's go brand all Republicans 'kooks,' like the Tea Party candidates." All that suggestion did was get the most enthused voters/volunteers/activists even more revved up and ready for combat.

Then we have former President Jimmy Carter on his umpteenth book tour telling everyone in all humility how, "I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents." What the Carter book tour really did was remind voters how much President Obama reminds them of Carter and his failed presidency.

Then we come to this week. We start the week with a CNBC sponsored and televised town hall meeting with real voters. Well, the real voters tell the president to his face that they really don't like him and are terribly disappointed in his job performance.

Those voters, many of whom voted for the president, are then featured all week on other television shows repeating why they told the president that his administration is failing them.

Then Tuesday we hear that the economics czar, Larry Summers, is resigning to go back to Harvard and teach. He must have read that the recession is over and his job is done. Ask the 18.8 percent who tell the Gallup Poll that they are unemployed or underemployed if the recession is over.

Another sidebar: While everybody is distracted and getting beaten up by former supporters who don't love the president anymore, Harry Reid tries with five weeks to go before Election Day to slip the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" into the defense appropriation bill for the Iraq and Afghan wars.

It of course fails, so blame the Republicans again.

And speaking of bad timing and the Afghan war, we read front page stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post about Bob Woodward's 16th nonfiction book "Obama's Wars" that is to be published Monday.

From the excerpts reprinted in the Times and Post stories, the "wars" he talks about are inside the White House -- tales that make Gen. Stanley McChrystal's staff's comments seem tame by comparison.

It will take at least a week or two of damage control just to get the White House focused back on the elections a few weeks hence.

One of the topics I research is skill sets among the IS workforce. Different types of organizations desire different sets of skills in their employees. The desired skills also vary by organizational level (entry level, mid-level, etc.) and function (marketing, accounting, IT, etc.) Not exactly rocket science, I know, but hey - it beats working for a living.

Anyway, it amazes me that the people who were so effective on the campaign trail are so ineffective in office. I would have thought that some of the skill sets effective in campaigning - organizing, polling, public relations, and so forth) would be equally valuable in governing. Either that premise is false, or the people involved in the campaign are not a part of the administration (or at least have different roles in the administration), or they are more focused on enjoying the perks of governing than on doing a good job.

It's a mystery why, but unfortunately for us the outcomes are clear.

Hurry November...