Opinion

Opinion

Obama simply too far left for America

January 15, 2010

Advertisement

— What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama’s approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent — and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president’s second year.

A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health care reform.

A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing — even among erstwhile believers.

Liberals try to attribute Obama’s political decline to matters of style. He’s too cool, detached, uninvolved. He’s not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He’s contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.

These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today’s vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he’s too left.

It’s not about style; it’s about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society — health care, education and energy.

Then began the descent — when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate.

Then, the keystone: a health care revolution in which the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, Obamacare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators.

The public option was a sideshow. As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as The New Yorker’s James Surowiecki) understand, Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally “private” insurers.

At first, health care reform was sustained politically by Obama’s own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and Obamacare’s profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell.

The health care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people — disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized — have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.

Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.

It’s inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel — of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.

Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn’t just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something — to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America’s deeply and historically individualist polity.

Perhaps Obama thought he’d been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success — twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress — was a referendum on his predecessor’s governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy.

Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.

Comments

grammaddy 5 years, 3 months ago

B.S. If you actually check your record for yourself instead of believing this drivel, he's really NOT all that left! More propaganda from the Regurgicans.Nancy-Tom, how long will we be paying for the last administration's mistakes?Al Franken hasn't even been there that long. Just because he told one of your tea-baggers to sit down and shut up, now he's a target, too?

Richard Heckler 5 years, 3 months ago

How can Obama be too far left?

He did what a repub president would have done by giving Wall Street Banks a huge bailout after a repub president and his crew destroyed our economy AND put 8 million people out of work.

The republican party are masters at putting millions upon millions upon millions of people out of work. AND stealing taxpayers retirement plans along the way.

Repubs do with a remarkable degree of consistency is wreck the economy,initiate huge movements of shipping jobs abroad aka the Reagan-Bush Global Economy and try to wreck social security and medicare.

Is there a definite pattern? Absolutely!

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

Great job, merrill. We haven't seen that set of links in at least 3 days!

Richard Heckler 5 years, 3 months ago

How can Obama be too far left?

On the issue of single payer National Health Insurance Obama simply would not allow that concept to be heard just like any repub president would have done. AND Obama accepted $20 million from the industry just as any repub president would have done.

Yes Obama is protecting the industry just as any repub president would do.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 3 months ago

How can Obama be too far left?

Pres Obama has expanded the war for oil and natural gas control plus following through on a pipeline project from Iraq to Israel just as any repub president would do.

How in the world can repubs complain about Obama?

Richard Heckler 5 years, 3 months ago

How can Obama be too left?

Privatization of Social Security is coming back on the table in spite of its' devastating impacts.

Repubs have nothing to bitch about!

leedavid 5 years, 3 months ago

Obama is too far left for us on the right that is a fact. He is not far enough for those on the left and that seems to be a fact as well.

One thing both sides might agree on is he is not doing a great job for country. After one year we see just about everything is worse off since he took office. Some will say the dow is doing great. I don't think Wall Street doing well is anything Americans will get excited about. They are pretty sure their problems are a result of Wall Street.

Another thing to watch will be they way he handles Haiti. If it breaks into violence, people not getting supplies, food, shelter, money not handled correctly...this will be his Katrina.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 3 months ago

Yes this is exactly what repubs would do! In truth repubs LOVE Obama!

What impact will Social Security Privatization have on the national debt?

Unless taxes are raised, the government will have to borrow up to $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that is drained out of the system by private accounts.

Social Security privatization will raise the size of the government's deficit to nearly $700 billion per year for the next 20 years, almost tripling the size of the national debt.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

How will the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the president's plan is enacted?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk--it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor.

While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension. When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income.

In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things. In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income.

If the move to private accounts reduces elders' spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality--and increased inequality hinders economic growth.

For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced.

Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme. The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

leedavid 5 years, 3 months ago

Merrill I assure you republicans do not love Obama. We probablly love to hate him. But when we look at Obamacare, the economy, Afghanistan, Iran, and unemployment for starters...we do not love Obama that is for sure.

Now the left, they love Obama and that support is falling according to the polls.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 3 months ago

Krauthammer, in his usual fiction writing style, describes the President of the United States as a kind of evil upon us and describes a nation rising up to defend itself from some kind of socialist demon.

Like Nixon, you wonder if he has episodes of paranoia that make him a risk to others.

You worry about Charlie, because he seems to actually believe what his is writing. Somehow, in the line between fantasy and reality, he has crossed over with no way back.

You worry about those who believe what Krauthammer is writing. Krauthammer is a kind of cult leader now. His followers, like Dolph Simons, believe that a great horror is upon us. They don't seem to consider that millions of Americans are struggling to survive in a nation less friendly and less compassionate. They believe the simple way to fix all the world's problems is to remove all corporate taxes. If the wealthy and successful among us get to keep all of their money, they will solve all of the problems and everybody will be happy.

Rush Limbaugh is saying we should not give aid to Haiti. We should not help those in need. Somehow, they deserve what they got. He has a $400 million dollar contract.

Just like the millions of Americans who can no longer afford to see a Doctor and who struggle to keep from becoming homeless. They got what they deserve.

Rex Russell 5 years, 3 months ago

Tom, as usual, your opinions are as skewed and ugly as Charles Krauthammer. The guy has a face for radio. Ironically, the main cause for Obama's dropping numbers is that he's not left enough. We live in a country about equally devided, philosophically. If you start out with the premise that 40-50% of the country would be against him (same as GWB years but in reverse) regardless of the subject matter, his drop in support comes mostly from those who VOTED for him. Let's count them off: Has yet to close GITMO. Continues special rendition worldwide. Fudged and hedged on the CIA torture controversies.Has not pulled out of Iraq as of yet. Continued the Bush era corporate welfare stimulus to banks,insurance companies, and Wall Street. These were all big issues to liberal thinkers. Jeeuz, the guy practically sounds like a moderate leaning conservative. This is where he falls short with the people who voted for him. He's not a big disappointment to you Tom. Heck, if the "Annointed One" as you so often like to moniker him suddenly was able to walk on water, you'd be the first guy to blog,"Look at this idiot, He can't swim a lick". He's definitely begining to be a big disappointment to the far-left idealistic folk who wanted to change the world and have gotten very little so far.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 3 months ago

The repubs destroyed the economy at least twice in the past 30 years.

They took us big time into the war for oil during Reagan-Bush Our soldiers have been there since.

Between Reagan-Bush,Bush-Quale and Bush-Cheney 16 million people easily have lost decent paying jobs.

Remember when Reagan-Bush began preaching Reaganomics(Wreckanomics)/Global Economy about 30 years ago?

Yep that's when hostile mergers,leveraged buy-outs and big time lay offs became the order of the day. Each lay off involved thousands of working americans. Those jobs then hit the road for China and other slave labor camps and the destruction of the USA economy was put in place.

kugrad 5 years, 3 months ago

Obama remains a centrist and a very transactional president, despite the attempts of immoderate Republican and regular Fox "news" contributor Krauthammer to portray him as some crazy leftist. This is just the same old, same old from the right, and a primary cause of our ability to accomplish much as a nation these days - propoganda posing as rational thought.

leedavid 5 years, 3 months ago

Merrill did you forget Jimmy Carter's destruction of the economy? Many say he is the worse president ever. Don't forget the millions that lost their jobs under Obama either. And he is just a one year wonder.

temperance 5 years, 3 months ago

Obama's too liberal? He expanded and gave bipartisan blessing to Bush/Cheney anti-terror policies, escalated our wars in the Middle East, and he killed true health care reform by caving to the insurance lobby.

Too liberal. Yeah, that's it.

gravitykills 5 years, 3 months ago

Is he "too far left"?? WHAT! Obama was more left than any other primary candidate. So many people were caught up in his hype during the primary and straight into the presidential election, and they voted for him. A more suiting title would be "Independents remove blinders. Polls plummet!"

monkeyhawk 5 years, 3 months ago

Republicans lose when they move away from their base. Democrats lose when they move towards their base.

Though I am looking forward to an interesting election in Ma. on Tuesday, the results have been preempted by the health care rush job. How predictable.

Rex Russell 5 years, 3 months ago

Geez Tom, you're on fire today. Gotta luv ya though. Tom Shrewmon: The Fred Phelps of the LJW political blogs. ;)

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

"Obama remains a centrist and a very transactional president..." I LOLed so hard I think I peed a little.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 5 years, 3 months ago

The focus on the job approval number in these polls doesn't tell the whole story, but, as usual, the fear and gloom crowd trumpets them in their sky is falling drumbeat. What's actually more interesting and appears to describe a more accurate picture of what the people are feeling is the response to the other questions in the poll. Surprisingly, those responses are much more favorable for Obama and include some favorable numbers from those that identify as Republicans. Of course, that goes without mention from the doomed crowd, but it is worth note and could indicate that the 50/50 polarization that had been prevalent in the past decade is starting to turn into a split of the conservatives with some remaining far right and others trending more moderate. So, the lockstep party of no in Congress is not a true representation of the pulse of the electorate. What some would predict as an off year for Dems, and would be consistent with historical trends may actually turn out at least a bit more favorable. But, by all means, let the chicken littles out there scream their gloom and doom message loudly. It appears fewer and fewer are listening and instead are rolling up their sleeves to get to the task at hand - making positive progress.

jaywalker 5 years, 3 months ago

That is an ironic headline as I've heard those on a progressive radio station gripe that he's too far right or even centrist.
The bloom being off the rose should come as no surprise. Jesus would be polling unfavorably after a year in America.

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Politics is a game. Hopefully those with BDS now realize this. People like to criticize whoever is in power. It is the Great American Pastime.

I wonder if the Liberals realize they were 10x crazier when Bush was in office, than anything Kraut writes. Every action Bush took or didn't take was hammered by the left. He couldn't do anything right in their eyes.

For example: When Glenn Beck was criticizing Bush every night on CNN, and making the same off-the-cuff and wacky remarks, Beck was just a single voice in a BDS dominated liberal media chorus. Now that Beck is criticizing Obama, he is suddenly extreme and targeted by the Left, and the rest of the media.

What does it say about the Left when Glenn Beck is a typical political commentator while a Republican is in office, but an wacko extremist when a Democrat is in office? Yet many of them still don't understand how crazy most liberals were when Bush was in office. It would be humorously ironic if it weren't so sad and pathetic.

Even if Obama doesn't deserved 50% of the criticism he receives, Bush didn't deserved far more of the criticism he received by the far left media. Again, when will people realize politics is a game, and while political involvement is good, jumping off the deep-end one way or another is stupid.

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Here is a centrist position on Obama’s main policies:

Reforming Health Care = Good Obamacare = Bad

Investing in renewal energy = Good Cap and trade = idiotic

Kick-starting the economy = Good Porkulus = Bad

georgiahawk 5 years, 3 months ago

Satirical, I did not watch beck back in the bush days so I have no idea what he was criticizing bush for. I am curious though, was it as vindictive, you know the "funny faces" and exhibition of childish behaviour! Did he have his chalkboard out with his six degrees of separation from Marx outlined? Any connection to Hitler, Mussolini or any other historical "bad guys".

gccs14r 5 years, 3 months ago

The political landscape in this country has shifted so far to the right over the last forty years that a moderate Nixonian Republican like Obama just appears to be a lefty to those on the far right.

BTW, Carter inherited an economic cluster**** from Nixon/Ford, just like Obama inherited one from BushCo.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

"...a moderate Nixonian Republican like Obama..." Dear Leader may be Nixonian in the sense that he might wind up resigning in disgrace before his term is up.

jimmyjms 5 years, 3 months ago

"I mean who doesn't want to play “God”? Who doesn't want to “Save” mankind?"

"In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on "a mission from God" in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord."

http://www.alternet.org/politics/140221

Indeed. Who wouldn't?

EXks 5 years, 3 months ago

ah yes, more of Sauerkraut's mumbo jumbo,

Regressive evolution, Glen Beck tin foil hat syndrome and Charlie, ya ain't NO William Allen White!

Darlen McBride loves you!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 5 years, 3 months ago

“In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on “a mission from God” in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.”

So, the person elected to the job wasn't in charge? Oh wait, he lost the popular vote.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 5 years, 3 months ago

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

"In any event, most political analysts are painting the picture more grim by the day for Dems this fall."

Not most. Some. And, while Rasmussen results can be adjusted for an accurate reflection, they have to be adjusted left in order to be accurate.

Seems we heard the same predictions from you, Tom, in the fall of '08. Didn't happen, did it? I guess a broken clock is right twice a day.

jaywalker 5 years, 3 months ago

"You must be talking about the whining wimps at FoxNews"

Watch that channel often do ya?

pace 5 years, 3 months ago

The republican right, Pat Robertson, George Bush, Sarah Palin. Obama looks real good to me/

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Georgiahawk… “I am curious though, was it as vindictive, you know the “funny faces” and exhibition of childish behaviour!”

I would not describe Beck’s antics as vindictive now or then. But he did do the “funny faces” and exhibited childish behavior. That is Beck’s MO. He is an entertainer.

His program, like SNL or The Daily Show are both entertainment sprinkled with current events, which shape people’s opinions about politics. I think they are all entertaining to a degree, especially SNL’s version of Sarah Palin. I thought it was a mischaracterization, but it was satire, so it didn’t matter that much. But I realize those skits helped Obama win the election. That doesn’t mean I now hate SNL or Tina Fey. It was fair game.

“Did he have his chalkboard out with his six degrees of separation from Marx outlined?” – georgiahawk

I didn’t watch Beck religiously, and watched him more on CNN than FoxNews because of my schedule at the time; but from what I recall, he definitely uses more props now than he used to. I am not sure if that was a new idea or a CNN vs. Fox thing.

“Any connection to Hitler, Mussolini or any other historical ‘bad guys’.” – georgiahawk

Yeah, Beck loves comparisons. I don’t recall specifically to whom he compared Bush and his policies, but it was definitely wasn’t flattering. Again, that is just part of his shtick.

BigPrune 5 years, 3 months ago

What's bad for Obama is good for the country. I can't wait until all these closed minded left wing zealots are thrown out of office. Then the Republicans can take over and require term limits for people in Congress, so this never happens again.

sourpuss 5 years, 3 months ago

Since when is doing nothing "too far left"? Obama hasn't done jack save for a couple of executive orders. Heck, he's ramping up the Afghanistan war. I think some people just don't like that he has a D after his name. Obama is just more of the Bush administration. The differences are trivial.

georgiahawk 5 years, 3 months ago

BigPrune, what world do you live in that the repub's will require term limits? How many years of control did they have without accomplishing term limits? They are power hungry (which is so obvious) just like the dem's!

sfjayhawk 5 years, 3 months ago

I cant figure out just what Obama has done at all - nothing has been accomplished to date that would place him in the far left category. Granted the stimulus was fairly big government, yet it was sponsored by a bi-partisan group - INCLUDING REPUBLICANS.

Other that that, he has sent more troops to Afghanistan, hardly a left wing move, and has yet to (unfortunately) close Gitmo. The various bailouts were begun by the previous - REPUBLICAN - administration. We can only hope that he follows through with his tax on the wall street fat cats who owe their very existence to the US taxpayer.

So while his rhetoric is generally populist is actions are, well pretty much non existent. Oh and speaking of his rhetoric, it has been rather refreshing to have a president that can speak using proper grammar and diction, and who does not use made up words. And his quick response to the tragedy in Haiti is a stark contrast to 'heck of a job brownie'

kugrad 5 years, 3 months ago

Right wingers have engaged in groupthink for 8 years of Bush and now they don't realize how far they have slid to the extreme right. Even the center of the Republican party has adopted positions that would have been regarded as extreme a decade or so ago. They have listened to Buchanan and Limbaugh and Beck, and now they no longer remember that even THEY thought these guys were a little too far right at one time. Heavy partisans like O'Reilly now seem almost moderate by comparison to the Republican base's heroes like Palin.

Obama is a centrist. He is a dealmaker. He obviously is not satisfying the left wing of his party, and the entire democratic party has moved pretty far to the right on a lot of issues. Generally speaking, only moderate democrats win elections these days.

If the Democrats wanted to run someone as far to the left as Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck are to the right, they would have to recruit someone like Noam Chomsky or Fidel Castro.

To describe Obama as being really far left is to depart from reality and engage in the fantasy of actually believing the propoganda that is circulated for political gain, not as a substitute for fact.

jonas_opines 5 years, 3 months ago

jaywalker: "Jesus would be polling unfavorably after a year in America."

Well, when you pull a political stunt like "coming back to life" in order to get extra votes, some will love you for it, but a lot of others will see it as a pathetic play for attention, and it might hurt you there.

Big Prune: "I can't wait until all these closed minded left wing zealots are thrown out of office. Then the Republicans can take over and require term limits for people in Congress, so this never happens again."

You mean like they did when they had a three branch majority from 2002-2006? Yeah, they really went after the term limit issue then, didn't they? For that matter, what would never happen again? Democrat president, democrat congress? Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Do you actually believe what you say? 90% of the time you're so far off I can't even comprehend the possibility of you being serious, but sometimes it seems that you really are.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 3 months ago

"What went wrong?"

A year long campaign by a media controled by the right wing/corporate/military complex has changed public opinion. Hardly a surprise. The campain was launched the day after the election and has been a success. Jaywalker had it about right. JC himself would poll bad after a year in America and would, no doubt, be the target of the same groups and subject to the same sorts of attacks. In America the media business model is pretty clear: it builds you up and then it sets about tearing you down. Sells lots of advertising.

jimmyjms 5 years, 3 months ago

"Then the Republicans can take over and require term limits for people in Congress, so this never happens again."

Oh, yes. That will definitely happen!

MyName 5 years, 3 months ago

Another worthless hack piece by the undisputed ruler of all partisan hackery.

What Chuck seems to leave out is the fact that Obama was elected because the republican candidates were all much worse. In fact, there still isn't a single republican politician or officeholder that could actually get elected as president today. This is because the conservatives have no agenda, no plan for governing and are completely bankrupt of actual ideas.

For some reason, Chuck doesn't seem to have a problem with this, which is a shame because America needs at least two parties with a plan.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 3 months ago

"This is because the conservatives have no agenda, no plan for governing and are completely bankrupt of actual ideas."

Oh they have an agenda, plan and ideas, make no mistake about that. They have not yet thought of how to sell it to the masses, so, for the moment, are concentrating on tearing down those who are actually engaged in governing. Which, I suppose, fits their agenda just fine.

jaywalker 5 years, 3 months ago

"Well, when you pull a political stunt like “coming back to life” in order to get extra votes, ..."

Still chucklin'.

"What Chuck seems to leave out is the fact that Obama was elected because the republican candidates were all much worse"

He left that out, did he? Huh. Didn't realize it was a piece on why Obama was elected.

"In fact, there still isn't a single republican politician or officeholder that could actually get elected as president "

"In fact"? That's a 'fact', is it?

"A year long campaign by a media controled by the right wing/corporate/military complex has changed public opinion"

Scott, ya gotta stop. You only spoil your crediblity by spouting that stuff every post. If the above were any kind of possibility, wouldn't it stand to reason that "their" push to change public opinion might have occurred,...oh I don't know...before he got elected?

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

"...Obama was elected because the republican candidates were all much worse." His acceptance of millions of dollars of untraceable and possibly illegal campaign contributions and the cheer-leading of the compliant media were other factors.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 3 months ago

Comparing Obama to Hitler, Mussolini, and Karl Marx just shows how radical the far right has gone.

They are so far out there that they need to come up with a new name for the Republican Party. How about the Sarah Palin Party.

The elephant has become a walrus.

MyName 5 years, 3 months ago

@snap:

Please, do tell the rest of us where this "shady money" came from. Oh wait, you can't because it's "untraceable".

Nevermind the fact that McCain ran a lousy campaign where he got caught flat-footed on the economy and tried to pass off an unqualified beauty pageant contestant as his Vice-President. It was all a "media conspiracy" that really won the election for Obama.

RonaldWilson 5 years, 3 months ago

Couldn't agree more, Chuck. This administration is chock full of lefty statists. They are all lovers of Mao and Alinsky. 2012 can't come soon enough.

mr_right_wing 5 years, 3 months ago

I could maybe work up a little trickle of respect for this 'man' if he were to stand up to Pelosi (who is blocking C-Spans access to health care negotiations) and keep his campaign promise that this whole thing would be on C-Span, that there wouldn't be any back-room deals out of the public's eye. You've broken more promises than you've kept Barry...how about actually following through on this one for a change..?? Who wears the pants in this administration...you or Nancy? (Maybe you could just send Michelle to deal with her...?)

jeremyhay 5 years, 3 months ago

"A year long campaign by a media controled by the right wing/corporate/military complex has changed public opinion. Hardly a surprise." Scott3460 is clearly telling the truth. If you do not believe this, then do a little research into who actually controls the US media. GE for example, Rupert Murdoch for example (An Australian who took up US citizenship just to control Fox News etc.). Look at Washington's "K" Street stuffed full with lobbyists. US citizens are fed a diet of right wing propaganda in the interests of the shareholders of the armaments industry, amongst others. Warmongering is in their interests - is it in yours? Considering that this huge expenditure comes out of taxpayer's pocket and that the US spends more on warfare than the rest of the world combined - probably not.

George Lippencott 5 years, 3 months ago

I guess this will get decided next fall and in 2012.

pace 5 years, 3 months ago

I wish Obama was farther left. Bush and co. the Right left this country sick, economically, culturally and morally. It was good to quit using fascist religious bigots as guideposts. I think it will take decades of careful work to put this country on a healthier track. Unregulated theft really was not a great long term plan.

anon1958 5 years, 3 months ago

SourKrauthammer simply does not have anything interesting to say because he is not sophisticated enough to understand important political issues or trends.

Obama's numbers are down primarily because the economy is completely screwed up. If you do not understand that the economy always explains a large component of a president's approval rating then you are blinded by your ideology whether it is right, centrist or leftist. Sourkrauthammer clearly does not understand this nor does his cheerleaders that are posting here.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 3 months ago

What I hate about the state of politics today is that there are very few normal adults having honest discussions about the issues.

You just have a bunch of people pretending to be adults that are pretending to have honest discussions about the issues.

MyName 5 years, 3 months ago

Really, nine kinds of hysterical, Tom? Or maybe people are just pushing back at the lousy thinking, empty ideas and worthless rhetoric that is passing as policy and opinion from the so called Right wingers.

There's a big difference between heckling and hysteria.

lwctown 5 years, 3 months ago

Nahh Obama is doing just fine. After 8 years of a president avoiding tough issues the USA is having a tough time adjusting to thinking about those real issue. Bush was only focused on terrorism which is an important issue but he competely ignored the economy, healthcare and the environment. Now that Obama is putting those issues in the spotlight people are getting scared. Give him a chance and he will do ok.

Jason Bowers-Chaika 5 years, 3 months ago

Huh What? NO NO NO Obama is not left enough. But politics is a game of negotiations. To get anything done one must play to the middle.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 3 months ago

"Scott, ya gotta stop. You only spoil your crediblity by spouting that stuff every post. If the above were any kind of possibility, wouldn't it stand to reason that “their” push to change public opinion might have occurred,…oh I don't know…before he got elected?"

No, Jaywalker, it does not. The effort clearly began prior to the election and, as I recall, you and I even argued over the right wing MSM bias at that time. The problem the right wingers have is that from time to time the stench of right wing rule is so fresh in the country's mind that no onslaught of propaganda could overcome the people's desire to protect themselves. The aftermath of the bush fiasco was a perfect example of one such instance. That they were unsuccessful in no way diminishes the all encompassing effort, although it does offer some glimmer of hope for the country's future.

mr_right_wing 5 years, 3 months ago

Obama promised a "transparent" government. George W. never promised that, but delivered something much more 'transparent' than Obama has so far!

Nixon lied when he said "I am not a crook!", Clinton lied when he said "I did not have sex with that woman" Bush broke his campaign promise of "Read my lips...!" and so far Barak pledged "transparent government' and at the end of one year hasn't delivered!!

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

mr right wing,

So the obvious conclusion would be that politicians lie, don't you think?

And, that when they make extravagant claims about the sweeping changes they'll make when elected, we should all be skeptical (I was during Obama's campaign).

In addition to lying, presidents have far less power than they'd like us to believe when they're campaigning for office.

Corey Williams 5 years, 3 months ago

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says… "...the stock market was a result of correction put in place before Obama was in office, if not before he was even elected."

Oh, I see. We can't blame the Bush administration for anything that happens after his two terms, but we can give the Bush administration credit for things that happen after he left office?

In my opinion, Tom, you're a partisan hack who would be able to see things a little better if you pulled your head out of your nether regions. You are an example of everything that is wrong with politics today: your party can do no wrong and the other party can do nothing right. Your blind devotion is kind of funny, though, so keep it up.

Why did he stop the reverb, Tom? Did you like it?

Corey Williams 5 years, 3 months ago

But you still believe that your party can do no wrong, don't you? And it is so much easier to be out of power, when you can criticize all you want without having to offer any solutions, isn't it? I thought it was unpatriotic to criticize a wartime president? Aren't we still at war?

Face it Tom, like so many on this board, on both the left and right, you are just a partisan hack.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 3 months ago

Sadly, we need the best and brightest in our country to fix our problems.

In politics today, we seem to have a scarce few.

Is our political system hopelessly dysfunctional?

This is the question most voters are asking today. They are not listening to the Democrats or the Republicans anymore. This is the real crisis today in America.

Don't they get it?

Corey Williams 5 years, 3 months ago

Who cares what party is in control, Tom? They are one and the same. They both spend our money like it's a god given right. When you can't see that being a moron doesn't reside solely on one side of the aisle, that makes you a partisan hack. Like you are.

puddleglum 5 years, 3 months ago

it is amazing how the small but very loud minority of shewmons and other fox news digest zealots countinually claim victory, when in fact-the continue to win nothing.

Obama=President

Nancy=Your dollars

Reid=Your backup leader

Brownback/Great White hope/possum-dixon=your guys

jeremyhay 5 years, 3 months ago

Krauthammer should emigrate to Israel - his true homeland. Obama is center right in European terms. He would be looked on as being dangerously right wing in Germany (which has universal health care for 99.99% of the population - and the Germans live far longer than the average American...). Obama is 75% in the hands of the military/industrial/ media complex that controls the US - Krauthammer is sick that Obama is is not 100% behind GE and Kaiser etc......

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 3 months ago

Under Clinton we were on our way to a balanced budget and we had a big surplus.

If people like Tom give up on the Republican Party, they are essentially homeless. I guess that is too hard to accept.

The only alternative is to come up with theories on how Clinton was actually destroying the economy and was just good at hiding the evidence.

The Republican Party is gone Tom. They drowned in their own greed.

I am just wondering if these Dumbocrats will do the same thing.

jonas_opines 5 years, 3 months ago

"The only alternative is to come up with theories on how Clinton was actually destroying the economy and was just good at hiding the evidence."

Not to mention saying that all of the growth that occurred during that time was actually caused a decade previously by Reagan.

mr_right_wing 5 years, 3 months ago

The dems and repubs are here to stay..neither party is going anywhere and the pendulum will continue to swing back and forth as far as power goes. You folks who believe in a 3rd party are fooling yourselves and simply throwing your vote away.

In my youth I thought voting a 3rd party would "send a message"....here's the question though...all these years of voting a third party...has anyone actually noticed? No. Voting a 3rd party is basically like not voting at all. If our choice in the next election is Palin and Obama, I will be unable to vote for president.

storm 5 years, 3 months ago

If we talk about all Americans then the other Americans - Canadians and Mexicans think President Obama is doing a great job for the United States. He is really an admirable and popular president for which many traditional Republicans are grateful that our values (fiscal responsibility, separation of church and state, etc..) are now being restored in the White House.

notajayhawk 5 years, 3 months ago

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

"Sadly, we need the best and brightest in our country to fix our problems."

Spoken like a true sheep, who can't think for himself so he wants 'smart' people to tell him what he should think.

jonas_opines 5 years, 3 months ago

"Not to mention saying that all of the growth that occurred during that time was actually caused a decade previously by Reagan."

Not to say that I think Clinton should get the credit for it. I think it happened largely because of the tech boom of the mid to late 90s, which would have happened irrespective of whoever held the office at the time.

Thought I'd clear that up.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 3 months ago

I guess wanting to recruit the best and brightest to help solve our complex energy, health care and global competitiveness issues is offensive to some Republicans.

Why am I not surprised?

You can't dumb down our politics much further. I think we hit bottom.

I hope we see more young people running for office in the next election. We need some fresh talent. We need the best and the brightest running this country again.

LoveThsLife 5 years, 3 months ago

“Then the Republicans can take over and require term limits for people in Congress, so this never happens again."

That will NEVER happen..there are too many career politicians on both sides of the aisle.

LoveThsLife 5 years, 3 months ago

I agree with jayhawklawrence..I think a lot of very bright and intelligent individuals are not able to get into office because a) they are not corrupt enough and b) they are scared away by all the mudslinging.

Gregory Newman 5 years, 3 months ago

Why in the world is everybody attacking TOM Shewman. This man longs to attack Obama because he has no life. Ask yourself what day has he missed on attacking Obama. The man hates the president because he wants his wife to gain a life and if he can't get her he'll settle for Sarah.

Gregory Newman 5 years, 3 months ago

Since Americans can only function on the blame game let’s run a 4 by 100 relay with 2 heats. In the 1st leg President Carter had a great reaction to the gun with a deregulation bill of the Depository Institutions and Monetary Control which basically put a gun in the hand of the Federal Reserve; then there was a superb exchange to Reagan and then he ran a storming leg down the back-stretch. His baton read. “Government is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free.” So he then proceeded by stomping the air traffic control persons and then scrapped the precautionary rules of the 1930’s. Then Wall Street said let’s go boys, its Showtime. In addition, he played a cold war against Russia and didn’t have a dime to pay for it. Daddy Bush stood pat in the turn and didn’t function well because of the deficit created by the cold war. He ended-up falling in a pit created by his son Neil with the S&L scandal and then nervously went before the Nation. He said “he would do anything necessary to free his son.” He then proceeded by conjuring up bullies and borrowing money to amazingly bomb the heck out of an old friend in Iraq. That will go down as the greatest 3rd leg in history because for 42 days Americans got amnesia about the scandal.

Then Clinton brought it home by running a blazing anchor leg and cuddling Newt Gingwich along the way because he thought that Newt would keep his word by helping him pass a health care bill so he made a compromise by signing a NAFTA/GATT contract that was negotiated by Daddy Bush and Carla Hills; then in the last 20 meters he blew China a kiss with a DUMB STUPID favored nation status.

George jr. opened up in the 2nd heat and got spiked by Bin Laden and bled badly and then often wavered on the right thing to do because he had a Vice President with insidious means so he struggled handing off to Obama who is runnin like a madman because we fell behind and is currently being booed by teammates because they never wanted him on the team. Now if anyone is upset about this message it is obvious that you can’t handle the truth. Try swallowing.

Gregory Newman 5 years, 3 months ago

I'm crazy because you can't SWALLOW. Thanks you're good.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.