The liberals in the MSM are beginning to notice that Obama seems to like being in front of the camera more than doing the hard work of governing the country. They are imploring the president to stop campaigning and start governing. The latest to write on the subject is Howard Fineman at Newsweek. Here is a sample:

If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore. But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it. He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked "done." This is a problem that style will not fix. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota.

The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.

You can detect a sense of panic in some of these articles as progressives realize their best chance ever to radically change America may be slipping away. As a conservative I don't mind at all. Obama can give all the speeches he wants to, every time he talks about healthcare for instance the public support for his health care plan drops.

 When you read an article in the mainstream media on global warming you can count on two things: First, the headline will be designed to scare the reader with a doomsday scenario. And second, the "facts" in the article almost never back up the headline.

A case in point is this article from The Washington Post. The headline says: "New Analysis Brings Dire Forecast Of 6.3 Degree Temperature Increase".

If I didn't know better I would be worried. The Earth's temperature is about to rise by 6.3 degrees? What the headline failed to mention is that the temperature increase is predicted to happen 90 years into the future, if it happens at all.

Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges, a faster and broader scale of climate change than forecast just two years ago, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program.

The new overview of global warming research, aimed at marshalling political support for a new international climate pact by the end of the year, highlights the extent to which recent scientific assessments have outstripped the predictions issued by the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.

These climate researchers could be the best weather forecasters in the history of the world. The weather channel should hire these guys immediately. At the end of this century -- approximately 90 years from today -- the earth will be 6.3 degrees warmer than it is today. Not 6.2 degrees or 6.4 degrees but 6.3. Admittedly it is an estimate but what an amazingly accurate estimate considering the length of time involved.

Now I know we should never question the mainstream media, but this amazing prediction has got me scratching my head. How did they come up with that number? Ah, here it is:

The group took the upper range targets of nearly 200 nations' climate policies -- including the House-passed climate bill that would reduce emissions 73 percent from 2005 levels by 2050, along with the European Union's pledge to reduce its emissions 80 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2050 -- and found that even under that optimistic scenario, the average global temperature was likely to warm by 6.3 degrees.

Silly me, I thought that number was based on science. It is simply a guess of the Earth's temperature 90 years into the future based on the climate policies of 200 nations. This is what passes for journalism today? I could get more accurate data by closing my eyes and punching keys on a calculator. Imagine all the poor souls out there who read this stuff everyday, and believe it.

And by the way these predictions are based on the flawed theory that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere cause the temperature of the Earth to rise. In the last decade as CO2 levels have been rising the Earth's temperature has actually been dropping.

I did learn one thing from this article, if you want to be a soothsayer, let your predictions play out over a time span of almost 100 years. That way all your critics will dead and buried before the evidence comes in.