Romney Directs Broadside at Trump;,Condemns Trump's Amoral Behavior

While it is far too late in the process and should have been even more searing - two and a half or three years ago would have been far better - in advance of his being sworn in as a member of the U.S. Senate Mitt Romney directed a broadside at Donald Trump's failures and tied them to Trump's amorality.  He did so in an op-ed in the Washington Post.  Here's a sampling:

It is well known that Donald Trump was not my choice for the Republican presidential nomination. After he became the nominee, I hoped his campaign would refrain from resentment and name-calling. It did not. When he won the election, I hoped he would rise to the occasion. . . . his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions last month, is evidence that [Trump] the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.

To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. . . . presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.

I will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions.

Needless to say, the op-ed provoked a Hitleresque temper tantrum on the party of Der  Trumpenführer, who along with his boot-licking sycophants now see Romney as a potential rival for 2020.  Articles in The Daily Beast and Politico both look at the new dynamic and paranoia gripping the foul occupant of the White House.  First, this from The Daily Beast:

Mitt Romney isn’t even sworn in as a U.S. senator yet, and he’s already triggered the heck out of President Stompy-Foot, the Toddler in Chief. Within hours of Romney’s searing op-ed in The Washington Post, Trump’s itchy Twitter finger got the best of him . . . .

Trump has always reserved his most bitter ire, vicious personal attacks, and gratuitous smears for Republicans, particularly those who dare to question his execrable judgment, daily outrages against conservatism, or hand size. Just as Trump insults and belittles our allies while offering Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and the rest of the Lil Dictators Club things like foot massages and sweet love notes, he attacks Republicans with a spleen rarely displayed toward Democrats.

Romney’s editorial is in many ways a bookend to his 2016 speech condemning Trump. . . . . That call to arms went sadly unheeded, and every prediction he made concerning Trump’s disastrous reign of misrule is playing out.

The alleged party of fiscal discipline bought a couple of trillion in debt for a tax bill benefiting a handful of hedge funds, billionaires, and corporations. . . . . Trump has demonstrated his comfort with failure and bankruptcy over and over again as a master rooking the greater-fools in a long cycle of borrow-and-bust business flops. He assumes he’ll be out of office when the bills come due.

Romney, in his speech, also highlighted Trump’s “bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics,” all of which have become staples of a performative presidency that is always more about heat than light. Every one of Romney’s predictions and calls about Trump from 2016 rang true then, and are proven out today.

And here’s the thing: Most Republicans knew Romney was right then and they sure as hell know he’s right today . . . . . Mitt Romney, the Enemy of the State, is a role I imagine he never thought he’d play in American political life, but the impact of his words is causing a full-fledged meltdown in the Trump-supporting media apparatus on the right.

Behind Trump’s bluster and swagger, and the 10-toothed roar of his arena faithful, the GOP just had its collective head kicked in during the 2018 campaign. The loss of 40 House seats, the trade-war disaster, a volatile stock market, a teetering economy, the reality of Mueller’s growing case against the Maximum Leader, and Trump’s foreign-policy recklessness have left Republican elected officials disheartened and shell-shocked.

Mitt Romney’s editorial is making the rounds for speaking the words that much of the GOP lacks the courage to put their names behind.  Many of the voices rising to condemn him are secretly whispering, “Mitt, it was great. I agree with you, but I have to defend him, you know. I’ve got to worry about a primary…”

The piece in Politico offers this:

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel connected with President Donald Trump by phone on Tuesday evening with some alarming news: Mitt Romney, her uncle, was about to publish an op-ed savaging him.

The next morning, as Romney’s op-ed took hold of the news cycle, McDaniel, Trump’s handpicked party chairwoman, sent out an even more strongly worded tweet scolding her uncle

In the op-ed, Romney argues that Trump "has not risen to the mantle of the office," blew up a delicate détente between the two men. And it immediately fueled suspicions among [Trump's] the president’s top aides that the incoming senator is up to something — maybe even keeping the door open to a 2020 primary challenge.

At a time when talk of a 2020 GOP primary has simmered, Trump aides said Romney, on the eve of his swearing in to the Senate, was seeking to define himself as the new leader of the Never Trump movement. . . . . And former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon argued that Romney had launched a “direct challenge to Trump for leadership.”

He [Romney] was well aware that the op-ed would ignite a media firestorm and that it would be seen as a key moment in his early Senate career, something he would be asked about repeatedly in the halls of the Capitol.

But as the new year neared, Romney found himself increasingly frustrated with [Trump] the president, the person close to Romney said.

Trump aides worry that a primary challenge would become an unwelcome distraction for the president’s reelection campaign and potentially turn the 2020 GOP convention into a circus. They note that no Republican president has won reelection after a contested primary and point to George H.W. Bush’s bruising 1992 primary against Pat Buchanan as evidence of the damage an incumbent can suffer.

Let's hope that Trump has a primary challenge - assuming he isn't removed from office before then - and that the GOP convention is a circus of epic proportions.

100 Days of Russiagate and No End in Sight

With almost no accomplishments to show 100 days into his misrule, Trump has managed to do something few presidents have done so quickly: trigger and on going FBI investigation and four Congressional investigations into whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russian intelligence operatives and thus the Kremlin to throw the 2016 election to Trump.  It's about the only "huge" thing Der Trumpenführer has managed and the good news is that there is no end in sight for the Russiagate investigations which, I personally hope will find collusion and treason and end the Trump/Pence nightmare for the country.  A piece at CNN looks at the ongoing saga (read the whole piece):

Russia's influence is currently the subject of four separate congressional probes, and has led to the resignation of the national security adviser and the recusal of the attorney general for the Justice Department investigation into the matter.

The steady drip of leaks coming from intelligence sources familiar with the federal investigation has turned into a consistent stream of embarrassing news for the new administration.

As the Trump White House heads into the 100th day, House and Senate investigators are on a slow, methodical track, pulling together the many threads of Russia's ties to a core group of Trump's top advisers, all of which promises to extend the steady stream of news related Russia much farther into the President's term.

The White House has consistently argued there is no connection between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. In an amusing exchange during his daily briefing last month, White House press secretary Sean Spicer made the point that overzealous reporters are seeking something that doesn't exist.

The Russia investigations stand at a juncture now -- with questions of whether they will turn out more like Watergate, which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon (a president Trump is often compared to stylistically) or closer to Whitewater -- a fiasco which harangued President Bill Clinton through his first term in office, but ended with no criminal charges against the president.

The one thing that is certain is this cloud of Russia questions is not moving from over the administration any time soon.

The very run-up to Trump's 100-Day mark was dominated by news first that former national security adviser Michael Flynn may have broken the law by not disclosing payments from RT-TV on his security clearance application -- a revelation not from the House intelligence committee, but instead the House oversight committee.

We've already seen this coverup behavior for the last few months: the number of people who met with Russians who didn't disclose it, the information that we've asked for -- whether it's Flynn, or Sessions, or Kushner -- that they won't turn over is concerning."

The White House has distanced itself from the four major targets of both the FBI probe and Congressional investigators -- Flynn, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page and former Trump aide Roger Stone.

Veteran congressional investigators say the best answer is to simply not fight the inquiries, by either withholding documents or distracting. . . . . The White House does not appear to heeding at least some of that advice, telling the House oversight committee earlier this week that for several reasons it would not be handing over documents they requested related to Flynn.

The peril for the Trump administration is that it now faces not just an active FBI investigation, but two major, functioning Congressional probes and additional inquiries -- all churning slowly in quiet, digging deeper into the Trump campaign's ties to Russian operatives.

Meanwhile, outside the Capitol, "Tax Returns!" has become a chant in rowdy town hall meetings where Democratic and Republican lawmakers are bombarded with questions about Trump's financial holdings that, progressive activists say, could easily show Trump's own ties to Russia.

So far, Republicans in the House and Senate have resisted calls to subpoena Trump's tax returns. But House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has noted that, if Democrats win back the House in 2018, they could easily seek his tax returns.

The 100-Day benchmark is typically a victory lap for a new administration -- but the parade of Russia stories from this fledgling White House and the outstanding questions -- almost guarantees the story far away from its ending.

100 Days: Trump Fails Even Low Expectations

100 days into the misrule of Donald Trump, a/k/a Der Trumpenführer, thankfully little has been accomplished.  I say thankfully, because so much of the Trump/Pence and GOP agenda is bad and threatens to harm average Americans, including those who were stupid enough to fall for Trump's racist and xenophobic campaign rhetoric.  Thankfully, the renewed GOP to destroy health care for millions is as of this morning once again on the back burner.  As for the Trump "tax plan" a New York Times headline describes the one page exercise in irresponsible behavior this way:  "Plan Redistributes America’s Wealth to Its Richest Families." Among those families, of course is Trump's own.  The atmosphere that is net result of this incompetent and deranged presidency is aptly described in a New York Times op-ed this way:  

"Fans of old TV series may remember a classic “Twilight Zone” episode titled “It’s a Good Life.” It featured a small town terrorized by a 6-year-old who for some reason had monstrous superpowers, coupled with complete emotional immaturity. Everyone lived in constant fear, made worse by the need to pretend that everything was fine. After all, any hint of discontent could bring terrible retribution. . . . . Actually, it feels a bit like that just living in Trump’s America."

What is most baffling - until one looks at and understands to white rage that powered Trump to office and his legitimizing of the same - is that surveys show that 96% of voters are happy with Trump's performance even though he has delivered little or nothing to date.  A column in the Washington Post by a conservative columnist looks at Trump's inability to meet even exceedingly low expectations.  Here are highlights:

As we cross the finish line of President Trump’s first 100 days, no leader in recent memory has benefited more from low expectations. A more typical president who tumbled from an approval rating in the high 60s to one in the low 40s would be in a political crisis. Trump’s current performance is only a slight dip from his divisive norm.

A president with pretensions of rhetorical coherence would be embarrassed by gaffes and mediocre speeches. For Trump, gaffes and inarticulateness are part of the package. A president with high standards of integrity would be mortified by a brewing scandal that seems to involve smarmy aides and a foreign government. For Trump, well, what would you expect?

The president is particularly proud of the consequential elevation of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. But this action invites a comparison. Trump’s one unquestioned achievement consists of appointing another man who actually has thoughtful convictions.

Much of Trump’s 100-days defense could have been employed by the pharaoh who ruled after the one in the book of Exodus. The cattle haven’t all died. We’ve seen less fiery hail. And pestilence has been kept to an acceptable minimum.

[A]t least, in polling language, he is a “strong and decisive leader.” This is a conceit that becomes harder and harder to maintain. . . .  Consider Trump’s interaction with China. On the campaign trail, the Chinese were currency manipulators who were too weak on North Korean nukes. In his first meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the American president got his first glimpse of the Chinese perspective and was transformed.
It seems the case that one of America’s main strategic rivals was, quite literally, schooling the American president on economics and foreign policy.

A similar picture has emerged in Trump’s dealings with Congress. When the Freedom Caucus defied him on health care, the administration’s blustery threats against the dissenters came to nothing. House Republicans ignored his tantrum and continued their work. 

Ultimately, Trump is failing because he has little knowledge of the world and no guiding star of moral principle. The best of our leaders — think Abraham Lincoln — have been sure about the truth and uncertain about themselves. Trump is the opposite. His mind is uncluttered by creeds. He knows what he wants at any given moment, but it can bear little relation to the moment following. Who really believes that he would be sleepless if the wall were not built or if NAFTA ultimately survived? Who believes he would not be sleepless because of a nasty joke at his expense during a dinner party?

Trump clearly wants to be judged by a frenetic level of activity. But the issue at hand is direction, not momentum. It is useful to undo some past liberal excesses, as Trump has done. But negation can’t be confused with inspiration. There can be no measure of political progress without a measuring stick of political conviction. Instead, we are treated to hysterical self-praise. Appalling — but, hey, what did we expect?

The End of the Bush Dynasty?

I never have been a fan of Jeb Bush - or any of the Bush clan for that matter, especially the cretinous George W. Bush who brought so much otherwise avoidable misfortune on the nation. After his drubbing in South Carolina, it seems that even whacked out members of the GOP base were unwilling to give the Bush dynasty another chance to harm the country.  Too many of those of an older age remember the contrast between the Clinton White House years and the last Bush's misrule and national disaster.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at how Jeb went down the drain while Hillary Clinton has managed to stay relevant.  Here are highlights:

The Clinton political dynasty is still alive. The Bush dynasty has been routed. Their contrasting fates, to this point at least, tell us much about our two parties, the nature of this year’s presidential election, and the dueling legacies themselves.

The Republican and Democratic contests are very different, beginning with the fact that Hillary Clinton did not have to deal with Donald Trump, who targeted Jeb Bush with a viciousness rarely seen in contemporary politics. For months, the self-contained former Florida governor responded ineffectually to an opponent who flouted all the norms. This only made it easier for Trump to mock him as “low energy” and “weak.”

Bush was also entitled to a certain bitterness as he watched Marco Rubio, his ambitious and impatient protege, seize his natural base in the party: voters who loathe both Trump and Ted Cruz. Rubio’s definition of loyalty did not include yielding to his one-time mentor. . . .  his efforts came too late, and were, in any event, out of tune with so many in a party eager to respond to angry and exclusionary rhetoric.

Clinton now faces only one opponent, and Bernie Sanders, especially in contrast to the often thuggish behavior of Republican candidates toward each other, has been positively courtly. Building a durable progressive wing of the Democratic Party clearly matters more to him than scoring points off Clinton.

In a party whose election victories are increasingly dependent on heavy turnout among younger voters (when they don’t show up, the Democrats lose, as they did in 2010 and 2014), Sanders has overwhelmed Clinton among those under 45. He did it again in Nevada’s caucuses on Saturday.

Endurance under trial is a defining characteristic of a Clinton brand that also has the benefit of being less established than the Bush trademark. The Clintons have been in the public consciousness since 1992. Bushes have been in presidential politics since 1980 and on the national stage since 1952, when Prescott Bush, Jeb’s grandfather, entered the U.S. Senate. If the Clintons aren’t exactly Facebook, neither are they General Motors or Studebaker. 

And while frustration on the Democratic left with Bill Clinton’s pro-business policies has fed support for Sanders, the antipathy to both Bush presidencies on the Republican right runs far deeper.  . . . . Moreover, even some of Bush’s natural allies among Republican professionals worried that public memories of the peaceful and prosperous Bill Clinton years were much fonder than those of a George W. Bush presidency characterized by an unpopular war and a financial meltdown.  

Jeb can console himself that his son George P. Bush , a Texas politician, is already in the family business, and that being scorned by fellow Republicans is part of the family’s tradition.

The Case Of The Disappearing Dubya

Among other things that Jeb "Jebbie" Bush has acting as a sea anchor on his would be presidential campaign is his idiot brother who Jebbie on the one hand wants to pretend he doesn't even know and the other hand is the source of many of Jebbie's supposed policy advisers.   A piece in Talking Points Memo looks at George W. Bush's disappearing act as Jebbie disingenuously tries to convince Americans that he isn't simply a warmed over version of his cretin brother.  Here are story excerpts:

George W. Bush will not be giving speeches on behalf of his brother anytime soon. In fact, if the Republican establishment has its way, Dubya won't be anywhere near a camera for the 2016 election. (Who could forget his five-minute boilerplate video, shown in lieu of his attendance at the 2012 Republican National Convention?) His disappearance from the national spotlight is a strange phenomenon in contemporary American politics. Under normal circumstances, Bush would take his place along other ex-presidents as a national figurehead of some influence, especially with his brother as a presidential candidate. Yet, his deafening silence is indicative of not only his disastrous administration, but the GOP’s attempt to erase him from the country’s memory.

This upcoming election marks the latest great GOP purge of history. The disappearing Dubya isn't a coincidence. It's part of a larger trend of former Republican presidential candidates being faded to black by the party whose mascot, ironically, is the elephant, an animal known for memory and longevity.

Nobody has pulled a more thorough disappearing act than George W. Bush. Unfortunately for the Republicans, Democrats and independents do have functioning memory cells. They can recall two disastrous wars, mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, the war profiteering of Vice President Dick Cheney, rampant Wall Street deregulation, and huge tax cuts for the rich that helped the national debt to balloon out of control in tandem with defense spending. Unlike Reagan, there is no health reason for Dubya’s lack of public appearances. In fact, he is still around and healthy as a horse, perhaps due to all his vacation time as president.  (Bush holds the title of all-time great presidential vacationer, clocking in at more than 400 days of R&R.) 

The RNC solution to a mountain of damning evidence is a campaign to erase and displace—that is, erasing Bush from the public memory and displacing as many disasters as possible on to Obama. This is a test of the RNC propaganda machine to see how many people they can get to believe whatever they want.

The philosophical roots of erasing Bush from GOP history exists with neoconservatives and their patron saint. Leo Strauss is the neoconservative philosopher and darling of the Republican party. Strauss coined such semi-comical terms as reductio ad Hitlerum (comparing your opponent to Hitler). He also advocated civic mythologizing as more important than fact-based history in order to establish a new age of American exceptionalism. As a post World War II reactionary against Communism, Strauss devised radical theories about rewriting history. Ironically, his approach of bending and altering history was similar to Stalinist purges of records and erasing dissidents from public archives . . . .

If Reagan is an empty suit to be filled like exaggerated feats of heroism in a conservative piñata, Dubya is a dark political vortex that sucks away light and hope for another Republican president. Financially, militarily, diplomatically, and by every managerial standard of leadership, Dubya is a presidential tragedy brought to you by conservative philosophers. His two terms were devastating in every major category of judging a president. There wasn't one element of government that escaped being damaged or compromised by his policy.  By the time Bush left office, it was very easy to buy into the mythology that government doesn't work, because it was many of his advisors who helped wreck the system so thoroughly that a sense of hopelessness pervaded.

What is surprising is that when he was in office the GOP establishment couldn't get enough of him, tying their party's fate to his misguided policies. Now that his policies have had time to show results (No Child Left Behind, Clean Air Act, cutting taxes for the rich and promising growth), it's Democrats who are desperate to remind the country of the results of Bush's policies, because we are still suffering from the consequences.

Jeb Bush's Middle East Policy No Different from Idiot Brother's

For almost 15 years now, America has been plagued by a never ending disaster in the Middle East that was launched for the most part by the lies and deceit of George W. Bush and Emperor Palpatine Cheney.   In short, they and their advisers took America to war in Iraq based on deliberate lies and a fantasy world view of how their fool's errand would play out.  Thousands of Americans - and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - paid with literally their lives and/or ruined lives and America was partially bankrupted.  Enter Jeb "Jebbie" Bush and his ego driven desire to be president.  Terrifyingly, Jebbie's view of the Middle East and his would be policies would likely be a carbon copy of his idiot brother's disastrous policies.  Jebbie and the recycled advisers he has assembled from his brother's failed regime have learned nothing from the last 15 years.  This alone disqualifies the man from ever occupying the White House.  The Washington Post looks at the concern of even Republicans who revel in killing Muslims have over Jebbie's would be policies.  Here are excerpts:

When Jeb Bush stepped up onto the fabled soapbox at the Iowa State Fair on Friday, fairgoers pelted him with questions about the legacy of his brother, a former president. And his father, another former president. And one of his foreign policy advisers, Paul D. Wolfowitz, the architect of his brother’s war in Iraq. And about the war itself.

Under a blazing sun, Bush expressed irritation with what he called “the parlor game” of focusing on Wolfowitz and other past Bush administration advisers who have resurfaced for this Bush campaign.

This was supposed to be the week when Bush would finally lay out his own thoughts on how to combat the Islamic State terror group and put Hillary Rodham Clinton on the defensive — and wrest himself from his family legacy in the process. But over several days, it has become evident that his ideas on the subject are remarkably similar to George W. Bush’s ideas and that he firmly believes that Democrats — not his brother — deserve the blame for the unrest in Iraq and neighboring Syria.

His new struggles with the issue also come as he is fading in polls and being drowned out by the angry outsiders dominating the race.

According to Bush this week, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power “turned out to be a pretty good deal.” The 2007 troop surge was “an extraordinarily effective” strategy. By the time his brother left office, he said, the “mission was accomplished” in Iraq because security had been restored.

Bush also said he won’t rule out waterboarding in the interrogation of terrorism suspects, although he added, “I do think in general that torture is not appropriate.”

He said it might be necessary to deploy more U.S. forces to both Iraq and Syria — and that troops already on the ground should be embedded more closely with local forces.

Democrats are eager to exploit Bush’s remarks this week to remind voters of his family ties. During a town hall in Dubuque, Iowa, on Friday afternoon, Clinton took aim at Bush’s criticism of her, noting that his brother signed an agreement as president to withdraw combat troops from the country by 2011.   I do think that it’s a little bit surprising to hear Jeb Bush talk about this,” she said. “He expects the American people to have a collective case of amnesia.”

Most Americans still believe the Iraq war was a mistake and are opposed to new military engagement — making Jeb Bush’s approach to national security risky.

Carl Owens, a hog farmer, stood off to the side taking in the scene.  “I don’t know if he’s like his brother and dad or not,” said Owens, 59. “I wasn’t too happy with them. Mr. Bush, the last president, look at the mess he got the United States into over there where we shouldn’t have been. Kind of like the Vietnam War. We shouldn’t have been there.”

Mr. Owens, the hog farmer has clearer vision than Jebbie.  And if anyone is playing "parlor games" it is Jebbie and his delusional advisers - except their games involve throwing away more American lives. 

 

Jebbie Bush Can't Escape His Family Baggage

What do you do when your brother was perhaps the worst - or at least close to the worst - president in American history and you have unrestrained ambition (and ego) to want to be president yourself?  If what is being heard from Jebbie Bush's still unofficial campaign are to be believed, you campaign without mentioning your last name.  Apparently Jebbie and his advisers think the American public is so stupid they'll forget about the disasters rained down on America by Jebbie's idiot brother.  While that view may hold with the insane GOP base, it surely will not fly with most of us who don't make a practice of worshiping ignorance.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at Jebbie's effort to scrub his last name from his campaign.  Here are highlights:

A banner in the town square says “Happy 90th Barbara Bush.” Postcards read “Kennebunkport: 2 presidents, 1 town.” A local gift shop is selling unofficial Jeb Bush 2016 magnets.  In this coastal hamlet made famous by George H.W. Bush and his cigarette boat, it is hard to escape the Bush family — but Jeb Bush is trying hard to do so.

The past month has brought into stark relief the fundamental dilemma posed by Bush’s lineage, even as his front-runner status fades. He repeatedly stumbled to answer questions about the now-unpopular Iraq war started by his brother and has been visibly conflicted about whether to embrace or play down the policies and reputations of his closest relatives.

He conceded last weekend to CBS that distancing himself from his brother George W. Bush “is not something I’m comfortable doing.”

[T]he party faithful are increasingly seeking younger, fresher candidates — they’re “Bushed out,” as Barbara Bush has told visitors here in recent years.

And so when Jeb Bush’s anticipated presidential bid begins June 15, he will seek to set himself apart from his brother and father — an effort that will form one of the abiding themes of the impending campaign, according to aides and close friends.

He will make his announcement at a Miami community college under the moniker of his nickname, leaving the surname behind. There probably won’t be “Bush” on the “Jeb 2016” campaign paraphernalia. On stage will be his Mexican-born wife, Columba, and their three grown children. Neither of Bush’s parents will attend the announcement, and aides won’t say whether any of his siblings will, either.

Al Cardenas, a longtime Bush friend, said that polls have tightened because media attention is too focused on Bush’s family history and not on his record as Florida governor. “It’s about Bush, not Jeb,” he said.

Bush has told voters repeatedly in recent months, “I have to show what’s in my heart” regarding his family. But he also said recently that a presidential run “can’t be about the past; it can’t be about my mom and dad, or my brother, who I love. It has to be about the ideas I believe in to move our country forward.”

The disconnect, of course, is that while Jebbie he says that wants to break with the family political past, he's surrounded himself mostly with the advisers of his idiot brother - advisers that took us to war in Iraq based on lies and who helped set the stage for the worse economic crash since the Great Depression.  Jebbie's actions do not fit with what he claims to be selling.  Oh, and let's not forget about Jebbie's role in the Terri Schiavo debacle while governor of Florida.

Obama's Shrinking Presidency

With the GOP nomination process a mess and fringe candidates still popular with the GOP base but likely less popular with mainstream voters, one would think that Barack Obama would be busy solidifying his base and acting presidential. Instead, we continue to see whining and finger pointing coming from the White House when the finger ought to be pointing to the image of Obama looking at himself in the mirror. Yes, he inherited a huge mess, but his leadership style - better described as an absence of leadership - has played a huge role in the current status quo and has, in my view, enabled the GOP obstructionist policy. Yet, Obama still doesn't seem to get the message and it's to the point of doubting that he ever will. A piece in The Daily Beast evaluates Obama's continued marginalization of himself. While there are true limits to a president's power, I disagree with the article's premise that the office of the presidency cannot be used more to rally the troops if you will. All we seem to see is cold water thrown on dashed hopes. Here are some highlights:

It comes out of the mouths of President Obama and his aides like a mantra: The president can’t work miracles. One man can’t do it all. Don’t expect change overnight.

[T]he messianic figure, who promised to lead the country out of the darkness of Bush’s imperial presidency, has kept stressing his weakness.

It’s striking to contrast this incessant declaration of relative powerlessness with FDR, who had to call a press conference at one point—after accusations that he tried to pack the Supreme Court—in order to promise the country that “A. I have no inclination to be a dictator. B. I have none of the qualifications which would make me a successful dictator.”

Obama’s by-now characteristically paternal reminder of reality is yet another instance of what is becoming his presidency’s comi-tragic flaw. There is a constant disjunction between political tact and political candor. The country needs to believe it is guided by a firm hand that is confident it will prevail and bring victory. Yet Obama keeps firmly and confidently declaring that he cannot prevail all by himself, and that victory is not at all certain.

by now, the failures—the humiliations by the opposition, the broken promises, Obama’s withdrawals and aloofness—have seemed so constant that, in lieu of concrete advances, some more sober version of the high expectations of yore might lift morale.

Obama has been drawing down expectations and calling on the American people to help him since before he was elected president. He is absolutely right about the limitations of his office. But accuracy is not the same thing as truth. The truth is that the buck really does stop with him. The “people” have their limitations, too.

71% Disapprove of Obama on Economy

It seems that coming across as spineless and a follower as opposed to being a leader with a plan for the nation is catching up with the Follower-in-Chief. A new Gallup poll shows a 71% disapproval rate for Obama's handling of the economy. And even if Chimperator Bush and the GOP Congress created the current economic mess, Obama has now done enough (or not enough depending on one's perspective) through his refusal to lead and constant capitulations to the GOP controlled House to make the disaster his own. The irony is that if the GOP could manage to nominate someone rational - a big if given the growing irrationality of the GOP base - Obama would very likely be toast in 2012. And in many ways, deservedly so. Indeed, if Obama is re-elected, it will be due to the GOP's failure to select a viable opponent, not because Obama's been a satisfactory president in the minds of many in the voting public. Politico looks at the new poll results and here are some highlights:

Ratings for President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy have fallen to their lowest level yet, with barely more than one in four of Americans for a new poll saying they approve of the work he’s done. Twenty-six percent of those surveyed for a Gallup poll released Wednesday support the president’s handling of the economy, while 71 percent disapprove of it.

Just over half of the Democrats surveyed support Obama on the economy, while 23 percent of independents and just five percent of Republicans say the same.

The low ratings for Obama’s handling of the economy come as Americans’ satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States hit its second-lowest level ever in the Gallup survey, with just 11 percent saying they are satisfied.

The top concern weighing on Americans’ views of the country’s path is the economy in general, which was cited by 31 percent of those surveyed. Another 29 percent pointed to unemployment and jobs, while 17 percent said they were most troubled by the federal budget deficit and debt. Just 24 percent of those surveyed said they support Obama’s efforts on the deficit.

As Obama plans to announce a broader jobs plan with a speech in September, just 29 percent of Americans they approve of his efforts to create jobs.

Obama Reelection Support Softening

I've been saying for many months that Barack Obama was cutting his own throat by his incessant spinelessness and refusal to be a leader as opposed to a follower. The latest Washington Post Poll demonstrates that the frustration is building and that if Obama hopes to be reelected, he needs to hope that the Republicans nominate a sheer nut case so that moderates and disaffected liberals will hold their noses and pull the lever for Obama in November 2102. Yes, things can change during the intervening months, but Obama has needlessly alienated many who helped put him in office. Hoping that the other guy will be even less appealing is not exactly a strategy that I'd want to be banking on. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:

Amid spiking disillusionment with the political process, Americans are split on whether to blame President Obama or Republicans for the S&P credit downgrade or Washington’s generally out-of-touch behavior, according to a new Washington Post poll.

Obama’s political standing is weaker in the aftermath of the fierce debt negotiations, especially among liberals. There’s also stronger opposition than support for a second term among swing voting groups who backed him in 2008, including independents and women.

More than four in 10 Americans say they "definitely will not" support Obama in 2012, while fewer than half as many, just two in 10, are certain to back the president for reelection. The number of “definite” Obama voters marks a low in polls since November 2009 and has dropped four percentage points since a Post-ABC poll in June, and eight points since April.

Support for Obama has softened considerably on the left: In the new poll, 31 percent of liberals say they are certain to vote for Obama next year, down from 46 percent in June. One in five liberals says they “definitely will not” vote for him, while a 43 percent plurality says they’ll considering casting a ballot for Obama.

[W]ith 15 months left before Election Day, more than three times as many independents say they “definitely will not” vote for Obama in 2012 as say they “definitely will” — 45 percent versus 14 percent. And among women and those under 50, more say they’ll definitely oppose than definitely support Obama next year.

Lack of enthusiasm about awarding Obama a second term hasn’t translated into support for the current GOP nominees among swing voting groups.

The USA: A Leaderless Nation

A column in the Washington Post looks at Obama's speech yesterday and the man's apparent total disconnect from what's happening to the economy and continued refusal to be a leader. I've said it before, that in 2008 we all were sold a very bogus bill of goods. In the context of the 2011 elections here in Virginia, I very much fear the disgust with a lack of leadership by Democrats in Washington and the White House in particular will lead to a reprise of 2009's electoral disaster. Here are highlights from Dana Milbank's column:

A familiar air of indecision preceded President Obama’s pep talk to the nation. . . . It’s not exactly fair to blame Obama for the rout: Almost certainly, the markets ignored him. And that’s the problem: The most powerful man in the world seems strangely powerless, and irresolute, as larger forces bring down the country and his presidency.

The economy crawls, the credit rating falls, the markets plunge, and a helicopter packed with U.S. special forces goes down in Afghanistan. Two thirds of Americans say the country is on the wrong track (and that was before the market swooned), Obama’s approval rating is 43 percent, and activists on his own side are calling him weak.

Yet Obama plods along, raising gobs of cash for his reelection bid — he was scheduled to speak at two DNC fundraisers Monday night — and varying little the words he reads from the teleprompter. He seemed detached even from those words Monday

In the White House briefing room after Obama’s statement, the press corps grilled Jay Carney about the lack of fire in the belly. “The president said our problems are imminently solvable, and he talked about a renewed sense of urgency,” CBS’s Norah O’Donnell pointed out. “Why not call Congress back to work?” Carney chuckled at this suggestion. “I mean, the Dow dropped below 11,000 — where’s the sense of urgency?” O’Donnell persisted.

NBC’s Chuck Todd was not swayed. “Why not bring Congress back now?” he repeated, pointing out that “the American public seems to be in a little bit of a panic” while Washington says, “We’re going to stand back and wait until school starts.”

“Why?” inquired Politico’s Glenn Thrush. “He’s the leader of the free world. Why isn’t he leading this process?” That is the enduring mystery of Obama’s presidency. He delivered his statement on the economy beneath a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, but that was as close as he came to forceful leadership. He looked grim and swallowed hard and frequently as he mixed fatalism (“markets will rise and fall”) with vague, patriotic exhortations (“this is the United States of America”).

“There will always be economic factors that we can’t control,” Obama said. Maybe. But it would be nice if the president gave it a try.

Dow Drops 5.5% Yet Obama Still Doesn’t Blame GOP for Economic Turmoil

In its explanation for downgrading the USA's debt instruments, S & P basically indicted the Congressional Republicans and placed the majority of the blame for the downgrade decision on the GOP. One can debate the merits of S & P's decision, but with the path made ready for him Barack Obama STILL could not show that he has a spine and confront the GOP's irresponsible recklessness. Instead, he blathers and talks about "Congress" needing to act - and the Dow continued to plummet. What the nation needs right now is a LEADER with a backbone and a vision. In Obama we have neither. In a column on CNN, David Gergen has a column that makes the case that the USA needs a leader like Churchill who can "inspire his people to fight to the end" and "banish fear and steady a country." Instead of a Churchill, we have another Neville Chamberlain. I share John Aravosis' frustration at America Blog when he states:

I'm watching a tape of the President's remarks today about , and he once again failed to blame the Republicans for any of our problems (just as Geithner failed to do it last night). It's "Washington." No it's not. It's the Republican party in Washington. But in any case, what does that even mean, even if it is Washington? All the President is willing to say is it that it's people who put their party first? Well, that pretty much defines everyone in town, which is I think is his point.

The President is once again trying to cast blame on everyone but himself, and by everyone, I include - he includes - the Democrats in Congress, who are just barely hanging on in the Senate. The President's continuing effort to cast blame on "Washington" and "Congress" has to be hurting Democrats. He's been doing this for years. And now, we face a GOP that is as nutty as its ever been, and it's threatening real disaster, but the President can't find it in himself to blame them by name. That of course didn't stop the GOP presidential candidates from blaming the S&P downgrade on the President.

Andrew Sullivan in contrast - who as I've noted before was far behind the curve in terms of recognizing the toxicity of Bush/Cheney and the GOP - continues to stand by Obama:

[I]f you want to change that hideous dynamic, rooted in the 1960s culture war, you don't repeat it. You defeat it by consistent, relentless reason. Obama will be a transformative president only if he pulls this off, because he will have transformed our political culture for the better. As for his re-election campaign, just watch. The man has a long record of George HW Bush competence and quiet governance, but unlike GHWB, he can also unleash rhetoric that obliterates his opponents. Imagine a debate between him and Perry. Christianist swagger vs Christian calm. This is not weakness. It is a deeper form of strength.

I respect Andrew in many respects, but on this I think he's flat out wrong. Soaring speeches are not going to win back those who have said that they're "done" given Obama's lack of leadership and spinelessness. Too many Americans know know that Obama is all talk and no action. He may give pretty speeches, but that is all we will get. A Churchill would give speeches followed by action and not stop at talk devoid of action. I'd remind Sullivan that John Kerry ran circles around the Chimperator when it came to giving speeches, yet Kerry lost to the dullard. I for one want a primary challenge for the Democrat nomination so that we can hopefully find a Democrat with a spine and who is willing to lead and not be a follower and a lousy one at that.

What Happened to Obama?

In my view, the vast majority of the nation's problems track back directly to failed Republican policies which rose to a crescendo under the misrule of the Bush/Cheney years while the GOP held both houses of Congress. The Democrats, however, are not without blame because time and time again they allowed themselves to be rolled and proved to be utterly spineless. At the top of the Democrat heap in this fiasco is the current occupant of the White House who has remain aloof and disengaged and who time after time chose to follow rather than lead his party and the nation. An op-ed in the New York Times looks at Obama's squandering of opportunities and refusal to be a leader who might have helped mitigate the mess now confronting the country. It's a long piece, so take the time to read the entire piece. Here are some highlights:

It wasn’t just that the man who could be so eloquent had seemingly chosen not to be on this auspicious occasion, although that turned out to be a troubling harbinger of things to come. It was that there was a story the American people were waiting to hear — and needed to hear — but he didn’t tell it. And in the ensuing months he continued not to tell it, no matter how outrageous the slings and arrows his opponents threw at him.

When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment, with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.

In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:

“I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out. And it didn’t work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results.

A story isn’t a policy. But that simple narrative — and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it — would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands. That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement.

And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it. But there was no story — and there has been none since.

Teddy Roosevelt started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation’s food supply, and protect America’s land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement. Those were the shoes — that was the historic role — that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill. . . . But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics — in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time — he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation.

Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn’t bend that far.

So where does that leave us? Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. . . . . The real conundrum is why the president seems so compelled to take both sides of every issue, encouraging voters to project whatever they want on him, and hoping they won’t realize which hand is holding the rabbit. That a large section of the country views him as a socialist while many in his own party are concluding that he does not share their values speaks volumes — but not the volumes his advisers are selling: that if you make both the right and left mad, you must be doing something right.

The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history.

A somewhat less charitable explanation is that we are a nation that is being held hostage not just by an extremist Republican Party but also by a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election.

[T]he arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation.

Is the GOP's Plan to Destroy the Economy to Defeat Obama Working?

Today's blood bath on Wall Street has left me feeling physically sick - I've likely lost a big chunk of my inheritance from my late mother However, I'm even sicker knowing that the plunge in the Dow was likely part of a cynical calculation by the GOP. Yes, part of the plummet in the Dow relates to events in Europe, but a good portion relates to the bleak economic reality here in the USA. The debt ceiling deal will result in federal spending cuts that will compound on top of the severe cuts already made in the states - all of which will further depress consumer spending. Remember, John Boehner has boasted that he got "98% of what he wanted." What he wanted - not what was good for the country.

The chart above makes it clear just how depressed the economy is at this point - clearly we are in the worse economic down turn during the last 130 years save and except the Great Depression. And now, we are about to experience a reprise of FDR's mistake in 1937 which caused a second down turn. A down turn that was only over come by the vast spending associated with World War II.

It is truly disturbing that the GOP, in my opinion, is willing to sacrifice the nation's economy and the lives and finances of millions of Americans all so that they can attempt to guarantee that Barack Obama is a one term president. Politico has a long article that looks at the likelihood that Obama may not be re-elected in 2012. The thought of another far right GOP president is scary. But that's the GOP's goal and sadly Obama has played into his enemies' hands. Here are highlights (read the whole article):

The politics of the debt fight were a drag for President Barack Obama, yanking his popularity to new lows. Here’s an even bigger drag: Obama emerges from the months-long fracas weaker — and facing much deeper and more durable political obstacles — than his own advisers ever imagined.

The consensus has been that for all his problems, Obama is so skilled a politician — and the eventual GOP nominee so flawed or hapless — that he’d most likely be reelected. Don’t buy into it. This breezy certitude fails to reckon with how weak his fundamentals are a year out from the general election. Gallup pegs his approval rating at a discouraging 42 percent, with his standing among independents falling 9 points in four weeks.

His economic stats are even worse. The nation has 2.5 million fewer jobs today than the day Obama took office, a fact you’re sure to hear the Republicans repeat. Consumer confidence is scraping levels not seen since March 2009.

Where’s the bright spot? Hard to see. Obama has few, if any, domestic achievements that enjoy broad public support. No one assumes employment, growth or housing prices to pick up much, if at all — something Obama is essentially powerless to change. And the political environment and electoral map are significantly tougher than in 2008, especially in true up-for-grabs states.

The White House anticipates unemployment at 8.25 percent, and Goldman Sachs and others warn the number could be higher — close to 9 percent, which would mean no net job growth after the biggest stimulus package in the history of the world. No president has won reelection when unemployment was higher than 7.2 percent in 50 years.

Median home values have declined every month Obama has been in office, too, according to Zillow, which monitors real estate markets. The site’s chief economist now predicts home value won’t bottom out until 2012 “or later.” So, the one asset Americans relied on for wealth — and until the crash, for spending money — will be the biggest concern for many.

“The big issue for him will be whether people see light at the end of the tunnel when they ultimately vote,” Democratic Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire said in a telephone interview. “The people in my state want to hear that there is a good and bright and sound future. The average person is really concerned.”

Clearly, the debt ceiling deal and the coming cuts to come in November or by auto-pilot if an agreement cannot be reached will likely only further depress the economy and Obama's reelection chances. Will voters be smart enough to track the real fault back to the GOP? Personally, I doubt it. Most voters are poorly informed and fall victim to political ad sound bites - and the GOP has shown itself far more adept at misleading sound bites which in turn are parroted by lazy "journalists" at the main stream media outlets.

Obama Loses Jon Stewart and Blames Progressive Blogs for His Negative Approval Ratings

As noted before, I have little or no sympathy for Barack Obama who seems to be acting like a cry baby over the fact that many Americans are unhappy with his leadership and realize that he sold most of us - and possibly the economy - out to the GOP in the so-called debt ceiling deal signed yesterday. As Politico is reporting, the White House unloaded on progressive groups at the weekly Common Purpose meeting, where progressive leaders and National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling had a tense exchange about the debt deal. Possibly spurring the White House displeasure was the ridicule that Obama received from the Daily Show's Jon Stewart. First this from the Washington Post on the Jon Stewart trashing of Obama:

It is a truism, annoying as it may be for White House officials, that when the TV comics make the president an object of derision, the president is in trouble. Such ribbing is confirmation that whatever spin the White House is using to conceal a misstep hasn’t worked, and the entire country knows it, making it fodder for jokes.

The debt-ceiling deal is a case in point. Jon Stewart, the most intellectually astute of the left’s comic darlings, went after President Obama in hilarious fashion. . . . Very funny — unless you work in the Obama White House and are scrambling to defuse the contempt, anger and disappointment oozing from every pore of his liberal supporters.

All of this has very immediate implications for the 2012 race. First, at a time when Obama should be courting independent voters he instead is working feverishly to reassure his base. That in turn (especially his pleading for tax increases and a bevy of new “investments”) will make his job of recapturing independent voters even tougher. Second, his weakness invites Republicans to revive questions about his leadership and competence.Those queries will have more resonance with the public and the media now that Democrats are in essence complaining about the same thing. And finally, Obama’s assurance that tax hikes, regulation and “investment” remain part of his agenda can only further worry and paralyze employers. You can understand why they might not be rushing to hire more workers.

Back at what happened at the weekly Common Purpose meeting, Politico has a story. Here are highlights:

The meeting is an off-the-record, regular gathering that some on the left credit both with keeping the White House aware of liberal concern and keeping liberal messaging coordinated with the White House. Critics deride it as a "veal pen" aimed at neutering the left.

Yesterday, Sperling faced a series of questions about the White House's concessions on the debt ceiling fight and its inability to move in the direction of new taxes or revenues. Progressive consultant Mike Lux, the sources said, summed up the liberal concern, producing what a participant described as an "extremely defensive" response from Sperling.

Sperling, a person involved said, pointed his finger at liberal groups, which he said hadn't done enough to highlight what he saw as the positive side of the debt package -- a message that didn't go over well with participants.

Why Obama May Lose in 2012

Andrew Sullivan has had lots of debate on his blog today about the debt ceiling deal and what it portends for Obama in 2012. A lot can change between now and November 2012, and it's still open to debate as to whether or not the the Republicans will nominate a certifiable nutcase as its standard bearer, but I'm with those who believe that Obama may have shot himself - perhaps mortally - by allowing himself to be rolled by the GOP and the utter irrational folks in the GOP base. A number of readers and pundits have highlighted the potential negatives for Obama. Meanwhile, Andrew has remained an Obama cheerleader (remember that Andrew was way behind the curb in jettisoning the Chimperator and the GOP not that many years back). Here are some highlights from the naysayers when it comes to Obama's prospects. First, there is this one:

I have to say that I think that you are really overlooking just how depressed Obama's base is about this agreement. . . . . For the first time today, I got an e-mail from my little sister who does not follow politics closely at all. She was a first time voter in 2008. She is exactly the profile of the type of voter Obama will need again in 2012. Her e-mail to me had the subject line: "I am done." I opened the e-mail and she had written only one line: "I cannot support a President who seems incapable of standing up to bullies." I can't help but think of the many other young people in their mid to late 20s (like my sister) who have already decided that this President is not up to the task.

Between the young people who can't find jobs, the people of color who are living in the depression, and the party activists who feel as though Obama doesn't "fight" for their principles, it is truly difficult for me to see how Barack Obama is re-elected in 2012. If David Plouffe were living our here in the heartland, all of his hair would be grey. I think that this episode means the death-knell for Obama's re-election prospects.

This sentiment seems to sum up the views of my children - all of who voted for Obama - and my own. If by some fluke the GOP were to nominate someone sane like Jon Huntsman, I believe that Obama would lose a huge number of votes. Another post is this one (I've hit highlights):

A reader writes: You wrote: "While all the liberals are bemoaning their purportedly weak president..." I know we don't agree about this. But at least give me and all the others like me the benefit of the doubt -- our opinions on this aren't pure nonsense. This is not about losing some dick measuring contest. Here's a Pro-Publica article that's mostly a summary of economic stats:

The economy is bad. It is, by now, Obama's economy. I understand what Bush and Co did, and I know the role that Greenspan played, and all of that. But Obama can't say "I inherited this from Bush" if he's not making the requisite policy changes to prevent it from happening again. And he hasn't been willing to take on the people who would lose under genuine reform. He hasn't done what's necessary. He hasn't tried. This is where I'm coming from.

And then there's this one:

Adam Serwer echoes Seth Masket: . . . . Come election time, though, voters may simply decide that even if the recession isn’t Obama’s fault, he still failed to get us out of it. The presidency is not graded on a curve. Even assuming Republican intransigence and obstruction have given Obama the most challenging political landscape ever for a Democratic president, what matters is whether voters feel like he did what he was elected to do: Bring the American economy back from the brink.

If I were to be presented with a sane alternative to Obama, as of now, I'd pull the opposing lever - be it for a Democrat primary challenger or a sane Republican with a spine and a genuine concern for the country. Obama has been a HUGE disappointment.

Obama Gives It All Away

Another view of the supposed budget deal can be found at the Daily Beast where Obama is excoriated for surrendering completely to the GOP extremists. As I have noted before, I would welcome a primary fight to challenge Obama. As a leader, the man is a disaster. My biggest concern now - assuming the House approves the debt limit deal today - is what's next on the emboldened GOP's hit list? And who will stand up to a political party that has the mindset of a school yard bully and which cares nothing for the most vulnerable members of society? Here are highlights from a piece by Michael Thomasky:
*
Back when George W. Bush and Karl Rove were wrecking the country, my liberal friends and I had many a hearty laugh about Rove’s boast that he was realigning American politics. Yep, we thought, but toward the left! Those hopes seemed vindicated when Barack Obama won the presidency. But just as Bush and Rove helped revive liberalism, it now seems plausible that Obama is ushering in a conservative era. The former did it through rank incompetence, while the latter is simply handing the Republicans the keys to the house and saying “take what you want.”
*
If the Obama/McConnell deal goes through—and it’s still sort of iffy, at least with respect to the House, where Tea Party dead-enders may find common cause with disgusted liberals to doom it— conservative governance will have made several extremely consequential strides, in both the short and long term. Here are four.
*
First, over the long term, the deal drastically reduces domestic discretionary spending over the next 10 years. Remember, this is just 12 percent of the federal budget to begin with. Within that 12 percent, the amount of money we spend on most domestic programs is small: transportation is .85 percent of the total federal budget, education is 1.15 percent; housing and community development is 1.7 percent, as is environmental spending; and so on for all the other categories of federal spending that in people’s minds add up to the evil “gov’ment.” The notion that we’re drowning in debt and deficits because we spend too much in these areas is absurd.
*
Second, entitlements are next on the GOP’s list. Take my word for it: The Republicans who will serve on the “super-committee” of 12 senators and House members who’ll be charged with determining the next round of cuts by Thanksgiving are going to aim squarely at entitlements, especially Medicare and Medicaid.
*
If Republicans were interested in a good-faith way in shoring up the programs for the long-term even if it meant, say, that Medicare wouldn’t kick in until age 67 for people now in their 40s, that would be one thing. But in fact, they want to destroy it. And Medicaid’s position is even more precarious. We spend too little on it as it is—the barest minimums for poor people’s health costs, which inevitably result in higher-cost treatments down the road. This December, liberals will be counting on Barack Obama to defend those programs. What a disgrace that that is now a frightening proposition.
*
Third, and this is most prominent short-term effect, cuts this deep will take many millions out of the economy and help to prevent a rebound (and don’t think the Republicans don’t understand this). The Commerce Department estimated earlier this year that the austerity cuts already agreed to took 1.2 percent out of the 2011 GDP in the first quarter. These cuts will basically ensure that growth stays at anemic levels through the end of the year, if not longer. For self-preservation reasons if nothing else, it’s hard to see why in the world Obama agreed to all this.
*
Fourth, and this might be the worst thing of all, is the horrible precedent set by the way this whole episode has played out. If he’s reelected, Obama is going to have to go back to Congress to increase the debt limit again three, maybe four more times. Now that he let the Republicans establish the precedent—never pursued by either party in our history, until now—what will they want next time? And the time after that? And after that?
*
Of course Obama did get one concession: no second debt-ceiling vote until 2013. By which time, if he doesn’t fundamentally change his way of doing business, he may very well be in retirement.
*
If the stock market temporarily rallies, part of me wants to simply liquidate everything that I have and then get the Hell out of the USA. I have no confidence that things will get better with time. Likewise, I have no confidence in Obama as president. Absolutely none.