That’s the substance of press conferences with BHO’s press pimp. And: Where will He watch the Super Bowl? Who’s invited to His White House Super Bowl Bash? How late does He work? What’s He reading?

Seriously, when Obama screws you over, it just feels right. He has that certain je ne sais quoi.

Indeed, Obama governing means that at last a “moral” man is in charge of deficit and bankruptcy-based spending. We’re safe; someone good has assumed control of the printing press. And what a relief that is. You just know that Obama spending the country into oblivion is vastly different from the Republicans doing the same.

As proof, under Obama’s tutelage, the elites have already formed a new task force to minister to middle-class Americans. It’ll be chaired by Vice President Joe Biden (a millionaire whose charitable giving is a fraction of the much-maligned, middle-class, Palin family). Right there is an example of the new goodness at work, to say nothing of a classic government make-work scheme.

So far, Obama and the Obama Nation demonstrate that their understanding of government’s role is of a piece. And, frankly, not much different to that of the Republicans, who agree with the principle of stimulating in public, but prefer that it not be as vigorous as Obama likes to stimulate.

Only a few weeks back, the Republicans voted for the outgoing thug’s bailout bonanza. Of course, in highly discerning Republican minds–the kind of Ben-Stein discerning–there is a difference between stimulating the financial sector and lavishing stuff on any and all à la Obama. To those of us who want to return the debate to the proper, constitutional role of government, there isn’t.

One thing is manifestly clear: If the Republicans were in power, they’d be doing pretty much what Obama is doing.

Based on the Republican Party’s unimpeachable record as an engine of government growth over the decades, it is quite clear that any show of principles by the Republicans is politically expedient and certainly fleeting.

Come to think of it, in the Republican opposition to the “stimulus” I have yet to discern an abiding principle, except one that reiterates my characterization of them here:

“How much to hand-out; who to hand it to; which hand-out makes the best use of taxpayer money; do the Big Three submit a business plan with their bailout requisitions, or not—that’s the depth of the ‘philosophical’ to-be-or-not-to-be among Republikeynsians.”

For example, Susan Collins, a Republican,

said she wants to work “with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with a final stimulus package that will indeed jump-start our economy.” But she worries that not all of the proposed spending — an aide points to a proposal for research on pandemic flu — is appropriate for the stimulus package. “We need to try and achieve the right balance, the right size, and the right mix of tax relief and spending proposals,” Sen. Collins said. “I am not at all certain that we have achieved these goals in this bill.”

It is not that the opposing Republicans don’t approve of the Keynesian model being followed by Obama (and Bush before him); they do. But they’d prefer to find spending programs that are in line with their “values”: faith based initiatives, rather than planned parenting. Again, I don’t detect any fundamental shift in principles among the party that cheered Bush’s bailouts and his stimulus. Correct me of I’m wrong.

Incidentally, even for a commie Keynesian like our Kenyan, this path is not beyond reproach. The Economist makes the following point:

“Mr Bush and the Republicans in Congress repeatedly gave voters goodies without paying for them: tax cuts without tax reform, subsidised prescription drugs without Medicare reform, and so on. Mr Obama must not make the same mistake. His stimulus plans may include cherished giveaways such as tax credits for low-paid workers, expanded unemployment insurance benefits, and investments in alternative energy. [NOT] All have their merits; all will also increase the hole in the books. Despite some earnest waffle about addressing the long-term fiscal challenge, Mr Obama has been short on specifics.”