Obama's Approval Deservedly Plummeting

Yahoo News is reporting that Barack Obama's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent in a second major poll. The main causes: the continuing bad economy and the health care reform fiasco where the rump GOP has mostly called the shots and been allowed to get away with blatant efforts of obstruction. And where has Obama been during this mess - basically silent and giving the appearance of spinelessness. It has been demoralizing and aggravating to see Obama and the Congressional Democrats squander what was likely a once in a generation or more opportunity to effect real and much needed change. Rather than leading, Obama has shown himself utterly unwilling to be a LEADER, preferring instead to leave the work of change to Congress which is showing itself contemptuous of the needs of average everyday Americans and more or less incompetent. It is no wonder that Obama's approval rating has dropped to less than 50%. I hate to say it, but it is largely his own fault. The American public wanted a strong leader and that is NOT what we got. Mr. milk toast is a more apt description.

*

This bungling and lack of strong leadership extends from throwing LGBT Americans once again under the bus to blatant mismanagement of the economic crisis that still grips the nation. On the financial front, Paul Krugman in the New York Times goes to the heart of the matter by looking at the wrong headed manner in which Wall Street was bailed out from the consequences of its own greed and willful misconduct. Yes, the financial system needed to be saved from collapse, but those responsible for creating the mess - both inside and out side of government - needed to suffer real consequences. Here are some highlights:

*
During the bubble years, many financial companies created the illusion of financial soundness by buying credit-default swaps from A.I.G. — basically, insurance policies in which A.I.G. promised to make up the difference if borrowers defaulted on their debts. It was an illusion because the insurer didn’t have remotely enough money to make good on its promises if things went bad. And sure enough, things went bad.
*
[B]anks would have suffered huge losses if A.I.G. had been allowed to fail. So it seemed only fair for them to bear part of the cost of the bailout, which they could have done by accepting a “haircut” on the amounts A.I.G. owed them. Indeed, the government asked them to do just that. But they said no — and that was the end of the story. Taxpayers not only ended up honoring foolish promises made by other people, they ended up doing so at 100 cents on the dollar. . . . [O]fficials could have called on bankers to offer a better deal, for their own sake, and simultaneously threatened to name and shame those who balked. It was their choice not to do that, just as it was their choice not to push for more control over bailed-out banks in early 2009.
*
And, as I said, these seemingly safe choices have now placed the economy in grave danger. For the economy is still in deep trouble and needs much more government help. Unemployment is in double-digits; we desperately need more government spending on job creation. Banks are still weak, and credit is still tight; we desperately need more government aid to the financial sector. But try to talk to an ordinary voter about this, and the response you’re likely to get is: “No way. All they’ll do is hand out more money to Wall Street.”
*
So here’s the real tragedy of the botched bailout: Government officials, perhaps influenced by spending too much time with bankers, forgot that if you want to govern effectively you have retain the trust of the people. And by treating the financial industry — which got us into this mess in the first place — with kid gloves, they have squandered that [public] trust.
*

Anyone who thinks a second term for Obama is a sure thing is delusional unless, of course, the GOP ends up nominating a nutcase like Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee that frighten idependents and moderates to vote for a known danger as opposed to sheer lunacy..