I’m not sure from where (or whence) the phrase “man up” came.  It’s a handy phrase, a good way of designating what is considered traditional manly behavior as opposed to the milquetoast meterosexual standard so often seen today.  There is also the Biblical definition of manning up, which means taking the lead in a relationship by being the leader in love.  Which makes sense, for if you truly love someone you do what it takes to protect and support them along with taking responsibility for your actions.  Not something you see all that often in this era of single parent households where being a father is far too often defined as one who serves as a non-artificially inseminating sperm donator.

It’s more than a bit ironic that the best example of manning up lately, at least as far as pop culture is concerned, didn’t come from a man:

After all, WALL•E did go to the ends of the earth and beyond for the robot… er, woman he loved.

On a more serious note, what does it mean to man up?  It means taking responsibility for your actions.  It means taking the hit when necessary for what you believe in and to protect those under your care.  Manning up means stepping up and doing the right thing no matter the cost.

Who can we look to in this life and time for an example of someone who has manned up?

I can look to my own family.  My father fought in World War Two and Korea.  My oldest brother fought in Vietnam.  Right now, one of my brothers is taking the lead in taking care of matters on behalf of my ailing aunt despite his suffering from erythromelalgia and the onset of multiple sclerosis.  Their example humbles and inspires me.

It also gives cause for wondering.

Who else has manned up?

Even the most foolish of fools dares not disrespect John McCain’s manning up by refusing early release from a North Vietnamese POW camp due to his father’s rank in the military, thus submitting himself to years of torture and degradation.  But have you thought about the other ways he’s manned up over the years in ways less dramatic but genuine nonetheless?

McCain has refused to toe the party line.  Forget Obama’s BS about him being a clone of Bush, for he is nothing of the sort.  He has reached across the aisle and forged alliances regardless of how it’s made him look in his party’s eyes.  He has been the target of conservative pundits for years, no more so than at the beginning of this election’s primary campaign when he was blasted daily for his stance on issues such as immigration and campaign reform.  McCain didn’t back down or change his tune.  He stayed steady, reaching out directly to the people.  Ever since his nomination he has routinely been harped on by a media scratching for every piece of anything they can throw at him while simultaneously giving Obama a free pass on everything.  McCain hasn’t flinched.  He’s fired back at the lies and distortions while remaining true to his message.  John McCain has taken everything thrown at him by left and right without backing down from what he believes.

John McCain has manned up.

Sarah Palin could have taken the easy way out and aborted her fifth child when she learned he would be born with Down’s syndrome.  She didn’t.  She could have disowned her teenage daughter when she became pregnant or coerced her into having an abortion so she wouldn’t affect Palin’s political career.  She didn’t.  Ever since she agreed to be McCain’s running mate she has faced the most vicious attacks on her record and character imaginable.  Palin hasn’t flinched.  She has remained true to her faith, her political views, and her message.

Women can man up as well as men can.  Sarah Palin has manned up.

Now… tell me when in his public career Barack Obama has ever manned up.

Ever.

Obama has played Pontius Pilate so many times his hands must be waterlogged.  Bill Ayers?  He wasn’t a domestic terrorist by the time I met him.  ACORN?  I didn’t ask them to commit massive voter registration fraud.  Jeremiah Wright?  I never heard him say any of that stuff.  Tony Rezko?  It just looks a little funky.  Barely knew or know any of ‘em.  Apparently it’s possible to associate personally and professionally with glorified gutter slime without once getting it splashed on you.

Oh, but isn’t he the great economic savior?  According to the Wall Street Journal, which knows a bit about such things (and lest one brand them a right-wing propaganda machine kindly note how in recent days it printed a fawning piece titled “My Friend Bill Ayers”) not so:

One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.

It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to “make work pay” that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A “savings” tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A “clean car” tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be “refundable,” which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable “tax credits” would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as “tax credits,” the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends “refundability” on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

There’s another catch: Because Mr. Obama’s tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge “marginal” tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of “making work pay,” but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you’re a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year.

When Obama told Joe the plumber he wanted to spread the wealth, he wasn’t being entirely truthful.  Under his plan everyone would be equally broke.  Except the government, that is.  And who better to have all the money since it always spends so wisely?

/sarcasm off

So again, I ask: please, tell me one time in his public career when Barack Obama has ever manned up.

Ever.

I won’t hold my breath waiting to hear back on it from anyone.