All right, so both Richard Nixon and Barack Hussein Obama went to China. But when it comes to comparing the presidents’ visits – and their leadership and foreign policy skills in general – Nixon trumps Obama hands down.

Let’s begin with what is perhaps the least important but symbolic: Nixon and Obama’s trips to The Great Wall. Nixon’s political finesse was sharply refined, even if the liberal press often refused to give him his due. What did he say upon visiting The Wall in 1972? Something that doesn’t sound so sharp – “I think you would have to conclude this is a great wall . . .” – unless the entire quote is heard – “. . .and it must have been built by a great people.” Of course most of the press ran with the first half of his statement and conveniently left off the second half.

What did Obama say when he saw the wall? “Spectacular.” And? How about a little more, please, Mr. President? “It’s a reminder of the ancient history of the Chinese people.” Anything else? “It gives you a good perspective on a lot of the day-to-day things. They don’t amount to much in the scope of history.”

Huh? (See Edward Luce, “Obama in Nixon’s Footsteps at Great Wall,” Financial Times, November 18, 2009, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d77dde8-d430-11de-990c-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1)

We can turn to the Frost/Nixon interviews for greater illumination of each president’s foreign policy smarts. Nixon is far and away the greater statesman. At one point in his China reflections, he talks about the way the Chinese gauge any leader. In essence, he says the minute you start talking about wanting peace and harmony, the Chinese will regard you as a fool.  For them, it's all about the struggle to achieve and attain.  They don't want to hear platitudes. What has Obama done since he got in office but spout his pacifist ideologies and apologize to America’s enemies? Obama is bowing to other world leaders even when he’s not physically bowing to them (which is rare these days).

Nixon also touched on the excessive power of the media and the danger of media conglomerates. (What would the man think of our current media monopolies?) Obama, on the other hand, loves the small media gene pool. In fact, he’s incensed by the few dissenting voices (FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity).

Nixon was also shrewd about the extent to which a president should utilize television. He tells Frost that a president can over-expose himself and diminish the power of his message by going on television more than once or twice a month, tops. Here’s another lesson that the self-over-exposed Obama has yet to learn.

But perhaps the most valuable difference between Nixon and Obama comes when we consider Nixon’s reflections on ideology vs. survival. In the Frost interviews, he says that regardless of its belief system, when a nation must choose between ideology and survival, the latter always wins out.  Obama may be the first American president in history to defy that edict as he does all he can to advance his socialist ideology – at America’s expense.

We keep hearing that Obama is “the first Pacific president.” He’s even called himself that. Many other presidents were either born near the Pacific or made significant splashes there. They too can be regarded as Pacific presidents. As Michael Scherer asks, “what should we say about two of our recent presidents--Ronald Reagan (born in Illinois, but came of age in Hollywood, becoming Governor of the Pacific state of California) or Richard Nixon (born in Yorba Linda, California, just a few miles from Newport Beach, served in the Pacific theater in World War II, represented California in the House and Senate.)” (“Barack Obama: First Pacific President? Not Exactly,” TIME/Swampland, November 14, 2009, http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/14/barack-obama-first-pacific-president-not-exactly/).

And for those who object to the Republican examples, let’s not forget John F. Kennedy aboard PT-109. If he doesn’t qualify as a Pacific president, who does?

Back to Obama and Nixon. Watching the Frost/Nixon interviews provides you with keen insight into Nixon’s expansive foreign policy experience and wisdom, qualities Barack Obama will never master as long as he keeps bowing to other leaders and saying I’m sorry for the United States’ past actions.

Richard M. Nixon worked hard to move beyond Watergate and rehabilitate his reputation. He succeeded to some great extent. No one denied Nixon’s keen foreign policy intelligence by the end of life. Obama should buy the Frost/Nixon DVD’s and a collection of Nixon’s many penned books. He would learn much from them.

It’s been over two months since General McChrystal, our top commander in Afghanistan, put out the call for more troops.  President Barack Hussein Obama continues to hem and haw and hold endless meetings to discuss the issue.  Maybe he’s too busy having parties with J-Lo and friends, compiling his enemies list, pushing healthcare, playing B ball and campaigning for fellow Dems to worry about such trivialities as warfare.  Meanwhile, things get worse abroad and more of our soldiers are paying the highest of price for an indecisive commander-in-chief.

Obama’s stalling is a perfect example of his methodology: vacillate and ignore a problem or fixate on discussion rather than action.  It’s inertia vs. movement.

President George W. Bush was all about action and movement.  People denigrated his cowboy diplomacy but he acted in the best interests of his country and those at risk.

Obama is standing still. He’s acting as if he were posing for an oil painting while America suffers.  He seems more interested in his celebrity status than the people he was elected to govern and protect.

When we do see Obama move, it’s to advance his personal legacy.  Consider that he still claims to have put an end to torture in the context of military interrogations when we never advocated it.  Consider that he continues to work to close Gitmo and bring terrorists to American soil.  (The Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are under attack on a daily basis with Obama and his Marxist and Mao-loving camp, even as known terrorists will be given constitutional rights and tried in American courts.  OK imagines that so much of the information that could convict the terrorists will need to be omitted during their trials due to national security.  In other words, it's hard to feel confident that justice will be served.)

And Obama promises to make Cap and Trade a reality.  This on the heels of growing evidence that Al Gore's global warming is a hoax (and a profitable one that’s made the ex-vice president rich in spite of thousands of scientists who counter the issue and want to debate Gore on the issue; he refuses. He even had a reporter’s microphone cut when the questions concerning discrepancies in An Inconvenient Truth grew too warm and inconvenient).

Moreover, Obama promises to make national healthcare come to pass.  This is yet another power grab designed to dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the world.

In other words, when it comes to radically changing our country – for the worse – Obama hops to the task with a lilt in his step.  But when it comes to directing necessary attention to foreign policy and winning a war, he checks out.

How’s this for cowboy diplomacy:  “the strategic nuclear power of the United States has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days, by the rapid production and deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic victory – and the certainty of total destruction – if by reckless attack they should ever force upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.”

Who spoke those words?  No one, actually – but President John Fitzgerald Kennedy would have, if he had lived long enough to make it to the Dallas Trade Mart the afternoon he was assassinated.  The differences between John Kennedy and Barack Obama – between being a Democrat in the Kennedy era and being a Democrat in the 21^st century – are profound.  JFK spoke often of peace in the world, but he understood the price that had to be paid in order to attain it.  His administration engaged in numerous clandestine activities designed to ensure America’s freedom and safety.  Obama’s vision of a pacifist world, on the other hand, is pure fantasy - a utopian dream.  Ultimately, it’s about ignoring a problem and hoping it goes away, rather than acting to fix it.

Obama’s M.O. also involves using the lamestream media to set up smokescreens and divert attention from a lack of decision on Afghanistan and our country’s most pressing issues.  We hear more about balloon boy hoaxes than about energy bills that will kill our already depleted bank accounts. We hear about Obama’s vow to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military while our soldiers are imperiled abroad.  We hear about how baaaaaaaad FOX News is, how Obama will not grant it any interviews until at least 2010 and how it isn’t a true news facility.  The latter from Obama advisor David Axelrod, who also told ABC that FOX is undeserving of being treated as a true news organization: “the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way” (Ann Sanner, “White House Continues Attack on Fox News,” October 19, 2009, http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/october/1019_wh_fox.shtml).

Here’s another line from John Kennedy’s undelivered speech:  “If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.”

Thankfully, more and more Americans – including many Obama supporters – are getting tired of the endless wordplay. They’re growing exasperated with the stalling and smoke and mirrors.  They comprehend that Obama is more about inaction than action.  The president’s approval rating has hit a new low. Obama's loyalties or lack thereof are drawing attention. Fewer are laughing when the birthers cry out that being a Natural Born Citizen is an important issue for U.S. presidents.  More Americans are questioning why Obama didn't embrace his Muslim root system until after he was elected.