Obama was a terrible choice and the Democrats will feel the repercussions of their bad decision for years to come.

Obama loves campaigning, obviously. He campaigned masterfully and as I recall, it took a long time to get him off the campaign trail...and I'm not sure he's fully left it. Problem is, he does not love being President. He seems to regard it with distaste actually.

Which is fitting, because that seems to encapsulate how Americans feel about him as president. Liberals must be disappointed in him. I'm not. I never expected him to be good, or even decent.

I seem to recall that most times a President, Senator or anyone trying to reach across the aisle to his/her counterpart in the other party they were usually spit upon and told that their opinions/ideas were against the others party policy. It was Republicans who said that they were not going to work with Pres. Obama, not that the Democrats have a good record of working with their Republican counterparts.

It seems to me that it has become more of a he/she is not in my party so I can't listen to what they have to say or even respect what they think. Tragic really, because the real loser is the American people who lose out on the chance for real improvements in their lives.

When will these people grow up and stop with the entire "your mean to me´, so I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude.

The thing is, Obama was really inexperienced, so maybe he meant it -- out of naivete.

He IS maintaining the spirit in which he campaigned. I'm saddened that they're still too bind to see that.

How is callling US Citizens enemies not treason? Especially when calling upon noncitizens (a large chunk of Univisions' watchers) to help punish them? If any republican had any balls, they'd start impeachment proceedings. There's plenty of material to work with-blatant vote-buying would be one.

I doubt Barry, or most of the Democrats, are "liberals" in the traditional sense of the word, nor are most hippies from the '60s, when Barry was in his formative years. Hippies and democrats like Barry thrive on exclusion. If you don't agree with their deep insights into the higher planes of consciousness, you are nothing but a racist enemy, who needs to be eliminated. This is more remnicsent of totalitarianism. I don't know when or why the term liberal started being used in conjuction with leftist ideals. They should have very little in common. I doubt JFK would recognize his party.

Hippies and democrats like Barry thrive on exclusion.

Hey! I'm a hippie, but I don't thrive on exclusion, quite the contrary. And I think Obaba was and is way too inexperienced to be CiC.
I was appalled, though, at the number of people who were at the Harbor Yard Arena in Bridgeport, CT this past Saturday as he stumped for the Dems there.

I was also amazed that he wasn't at least shot at, given that most everyone I talk to around here has had nothing good to say about him lately. But I suppose there are many others who are still drunk on the Kool-Aid. I can only surmise that they are as inexperienced as he is, insofar as knowledge of what is expected from the President of the United States. Although he's got pandering to the masses pretty well covered.

Obama campaigned on inclusiveness, and made gestures toward inclusiveness early in his presidency. Republicans did not reciprocate in any way. Instead, they did everything the could to delay or obstruct his agenda, employing the filibuster on legislation and anonymous holds on even minor appointments at unprecedented levels, leaving critical departments understaffed. These comments suggest that Obama is no longer naive about the degree of antipathy that exists between Republicans and Democrats in Washington these days and his ability to fix it.

We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office

Do we even want the president to be "majestic"? Seems like a bad description for a civil servant.

I agree with both Patrick and Matthew. The current status quo in politics pretty much requires that a politician, even after being elected, spends the rest of his term campaigning for the next election. The act of campaigning (the dinners, the shaking of hands, the speeches...) is, I assume, a much more pleasant experience than trying to work across party lines, especially if the opposing party's strategic position is simply to obstruct. I read in the New Yorker a little while ago that included a picture of a typical day of a US Senator. Basically, the senator doesn't have time to even draft or even review legislation that he's voting on - his staff (usually "idealogues" - as opposed to pragmatists), provided by the senator's political national committee (like the RNC) do that work; the senator spends much of his day simply trying to raise money for his next campaign. It was pretty sad actually.

Term limits would solve that problem handily.

Once the Progressive agenda is thoroughly discredited and nobody acts like government can be a positive force in the lives of Americans, we will see the acrimony on capitol hill diminish.

Until then, Cry Havoc, and let slip the hounds of war.

I want none of what he's peddling, and I expect the opposition to oppose him.

You might think making Bush look like a miser is a good thing. You might even like the Healthcare bill, even after you've read it. You might not care if your taxes go up next year. I don't, and I expect the opposition sees it the same way as I do.

Opposition to bad ideas is a virtue. Let's not even go to "unprecedented." Nobody has called Obama a Nazi. Sotomayor wasn't Borked. Plenty of Bush nominees got held by the "loyal" opposition.

Unless you work for the government, none of them are on your side.

It's nice to blame the GOP for everything, Christopher, when the DEMs have the majority with the prez, and both the house and senate.

"but the republicans are so MEAN!" Yeah, but you don't need them, all you need do is convince the electorate taht you are doing the correct thing in running the country, and maginalize the GOP entirely.

except... that's not what he did. campaigns well, is about getting elected. governing well is about everything else. Couple that with the fact that he can't even galvanize his own party with his agenda?

"oh, but it's the GOP's fault we can't get anything done with our majority..."

stupidest part? If he had concentrated on jobs, and got THAT turned around, he would have had much less problem with getting healthcare passed, and people might even have agreed with it... but he INEXPLICABLY picked the wrong horse. Like he doesn't know what's important to The People.

maybe he doesn't, and neither does congress.
they are already saying what happens tomorrow will help him in '12 because he can blame the republicans for the next 2 years, just like you have already done... but that is making a big assumption that the electorate forgets what has already happened. The only thing that might work in that case is if the GOP throws up another bad candidate. Because we know that O is certainly good at just one thing an that is running for office.

I was also amazed that he wasn't at least shot at, given that most everyone I talk to around here has had nothing good to say about him lately.

And turn him into a canonized saint of the left? no thanks. Better to let him own his presidency.

Obama loves campaigning, obviously. He campaigned masterfully and as I recall, it took a long time to get him off the campaign trail...and I'm not sure he's fully left it.

That's the problem with the permanent campaign, image consultants twitter, social media, and the endless news cycle. You end up electing candidates, not legislators.

George H. W. Bush may have been the last president who understood that when the election is over, you stop campaigning and start governing.

Nobody shot at Bush, and there was a metric shitload more anger and hate spewed in the media towards him than will ever be expressed anywhere towards Obama. If nobody shot Bush, nobody would even entertain wasting the effort on Barry.

Besides, as Aggie sez, why make him a martyr and virtually guarantee the passage of the entire Progressive agenda when you can just sit back and watch him self destruct like all malignant narcissists do.

"Instead, they did everything the could to delay or obstruct his agenda"

We're diametrically opposed to his agenda. So the repubs damn well better obstruct it at every opportunity. That's their job.

Hey! I'm a hippie, but I don't thrive on exclusion, quite the contrary.

Ooops, should have inluded "most" as in the previous sentence. I find that the vast majority of hippies or democrats have little tolerance for dissenting views. I still don't know why liberalism is now associated with leftism, they are diametrically opposite.

And I think Obaba was and is way too inexperienced to be CiC.

You mean, inexperienced as an executive or as a politician? As an executive, yes. But he is certainly a good politician. I figure, this is why he never voted on any substantiative issue, just "present". That way, he is an open book.

P.S. Can you believe it?

Will the government outlaw your 401(k) plan? It seems like an absurd possibility, yet earlier this month two Democratic senators, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., held a hearing on Capitol Hill exploring the possibility of doing exactly that.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Unions-target-your-private-retirement-savings-1398118-106409193.html#ixzz143nWsz6p

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Unions-target-your-private-retirement-savings-1398118-106409193.html

I'd gotten excited about Obama when he first became prominent during the presidential campaign. But then I looked into his background, and it was apparent that his politics and worldview were nothing like what he was representing. What we're seeing now is perfectly in line with what he's always said and believed, outside of his presidential campaign. This is who he is, and he probably doesn't care that a lot of gullible white people assumed otherwise.

My point was neither that Republicans are mean nor that they should not oppose Obama, it was that bipartisanship is impossible when the other side is unwilling to compromise. Given Republican obstruction of even routine bills and appointments (including many they support), it isn't surprising that Obama has opted for a more combative tone. Those who bemoan this change without acknowledging Republicans' role are placing all of the blame on the president for a situation both parties own.

@Christopher - what you're missing is that it is the Democrats who are unwilling to compromise. Republicans were not allowed into the budget meetings, yet Nancy expected them to vote for her budget.

And how are the Republicans capable of obstructing anything? Democrats had a massive majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. If anyone is stifling the Obama agenda, it's the Democrats, no?

Or should Republicans cross the aisle and go against their constituent's wishes so that the Child President can have his way?

Christopher, you said "Given Republican obstruction of even routine bills and appointments (including many they support)"

I would like to know your examples of the "routine" bills and appointments, especially the ones that had wide support among Republicans, but were blocked for reasons of hardball politics.

>>I would like to know your examples of the "routine" bills

Yeah. I think we need specifics. I'm a little wary of this talking point, considering the Dem majorities.

What exactly have the Republican's blocked that's caused Obama to go off the reservation!?!

"I was also amazed that he wasn't at least shot at, given that most everyone I talk to around here has had nothing good to say about him lately."

Joe Biden is the finest life insurance policy a President could ever spoon with.

It's precious to have successors who would suck more than you possibly could.

It's precious to have successors who would suck more than you possibly could.

And do we really want Nancy Pelosi that much closer to the top office?

Christopher, I'll 3rd or 4th that you back that assertion up. I remember, quite vividly, the emergency closed door sessions that Obama, Pelosi and Reid had over the healthcare bill.

There certainly wasn't any inclusion of the other side of the aisle.

Steve: And do we really want Nancy Pelosi that much closer to the top office?

She wouldn't be any closer. Biden would have to appoint another V.P. Pelosi wouldn't become president unless something happened to both of them.

Like Joe wouldn't shit himself to death if he suddenly found himself in power.

I'm not going to insult the intelligence of you all by suggesting that Republicans have all the answers but please do listen to what these Obama supporters have to say.

Dennis Miller often says that he's more than willing to Help the Helpless but has absolutely zero interest in Helping the Clueless. Besides the obvious corruption in many sectors of society, is not a huge problem that way too many of the Clueless think it's perfectly fine to sit back & contribute nothing, fully expecting the likes of Amy Alkon to bust her butt every day to pay for their lifestyles?

Incidentally, Miller, who lives in Santa Barbara, has publicly stated that if both Jerry Brown & Barbara Boxer win, that he & his wife will strongly consider leaving the state. Idle talk? Maybe, but perhaps not.

Sure, I'm more than happy to provide evidence. What is important to understand is that Senate rules allow anonymous holds on appointments, for no reason whatsoever. Republicans have also been filibustering essentially every bill, so that passing anything requires 60 people, not a majority, and the Democrats only briefly held 60 seats (after Franken was finally seated, and before Ted Kennedy died).

So that I don't end up in spam filters, I'll not post links. But here are selection of examples of obstructionism of

Last February, Sen. Shelby put a hold on all executive appointments to secure more pork for Alabama

Fed: Nobel prize-winning economist Peter A. Diamond ("not qualified" according to Sen Shelby)

Ambassador to Turkey: Francis Joseph Ricciardone

"The bipartisan -- and it's really bipartisan, with Sens. Mike Enzi, Richard Burr and Judd Gregg all signed on as co-sponsors -- food safety bill is in limbo again because Tom Coburn is obstructing its passage."

Judicial nominees, even those at low levels: "American presidents for more than three decades have enjoyed judicial confirmation rates near or above 80 percent... President Obama’s 42.8 percent confirmation rate is only slightly more than half of President George H.W. Bush’s 79.3 percent, even though President Bush presided over a period of divided government while Obama has thus far enjoyed unified governance."

Jeffrey Goldstein, Michael Mundaca, Treasury dept.

...

It goes on from there. It is incontrovertible that the Republicans in the Senate have been obstructing even the most basic functions of government for partisan gain.

republicans are obstructionist fear-mongers. they act irrationally and have no solutions for the problems they preach about. they have no conviction to follow through even if they did have said solutions.

have you ever seen a republican propose firing republicans or their constituents to shrink government or pay for tax cuts?

they pander to the fearful half of the population who vote republican for the mere CHANCE they'll get some extra money or more safety from criminals and immigrants and terrorists. when their wish doesn't come true they continue to hope for the best and fear the worst.

modern republicans are an embarrassment to the party name. there have been some crazy republicans in the past, but this generation might just take the cake. witches and hypocrites and separatist obstructionists. ike would shit a brick if he knew how perverted the republican party has become.

To Christopher,

Your claim was that Republicans were obstructing some bills that they liked, just for political gain.

Of course they would vote against bills that they don't like. And they would block appointments that they don't like.

I don't know Nobel prize-winning economist Peter A. Diamond or the post he was nominated for. He might be unqualified in the eyes of Shelby because of his political positions.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel winning economist. Still, he is a flaming partisan.

I would dislike Shelby to the extent he obstructed the work of the Senate merely to get pork. Without links, you are merely stating your opinion. Try putting a space in them to keep them from being seen as links by the spam filter.

The Senate always operates on the 60 vote requirement, except in special cases like Reconciliation.

Again, the strength of your claim is that Senate Republicans have refused to vote for bills that they like, only for political gain. I would be interested in the evidence for that. It seems to me that they would jump at the chance to vote for a bill they favored, if only to oppose the Dem talking point that they are pure obstructionists.

Along the way, what is the partisan gain from the Pubs being obstructionist? The principled gain that I see is staying away from bad legislation and avoiding current blame. The Dems did what they wanted without Pub agreement. This has made the political choice clear in this election. That is an effective, principled position.

If admistration policy had been effective, Pubs would have been blamed for not joining in.

My claim was routine appointments and bills that had bipartisan support. I've offered examples of both. If you'd take a second to use copy + paste into Google, you could verify any of these. If you fail to make a small effort, I'll consider the point conceded.

Other examples included bills to help lend money to small businesses, help homeless veterans find homes, and so on.

If you'd take a second to use copy + paste into Google, you could verify any of these. If you fail to make a small effort, I'll consider the point conceded.

The Senate always operates on the 60 vote requirement, except in special cases like Reconciliation

Sort of. However, forcing cloture was the exception for most of our history; in the most recent congress, Republicans have made it routine.

Whoops. Sorry about the redundancy. My own copy + paste error.

Along the way, what is the partisan gain from the Pubs being obstructionist?

They can put the Democrats on the hook for failures they help to create. Because most people don't understand things work in the legislative branch, particularly the Senate, obstructionism on the part of the minority party is a smart, low-risk strategy.

Your average person only knows that the Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate, and thinks that this means they should be able to pass anything on their agenda (despite this being untrue). Republicans know that they will not be likely to get any credit if they vote with Democrats, even if legislation is successful, and that the Democrats will be blamed if either they act ineffectively or they are unable to act. Politically, the best thing for the minority party to do is to obstruct, and blame the other party both for what they pass and what they fail to pass (which failure you work to assure using whatever parliamentary means you have).

As I am reading all of the above comments I begin to see a pattern of polarization, people tend to see only one side of the situation. You either think the way I do or you are incorrect and let me help you correct your thinking.

I myself am an independent and plan to stay that way. But I also consider myself to be a free thinker and can agree with some Democratic principles but also some of the Republican ones as well.

Someone here wrote "We're diametrically opposed to his agenda. So the repubs damn well better obstruct it at every opportunity. That's their job."

Isn't that kind of the wrong way to go about change, just oppose what the other side says and not try to work for comprimise and for a better solution for everyone. Kind of idealistic I know but I will never give up hope. I don't want my son to pay for the idiocy of past generations.

In the last, I guess, 30 years we have seen a real hardening of the party lines where any movement to the center or cooperation is seen as being a traitor to the party ideals.

What the hell has happend to the people of this country? Are we so obsessed with getting our way that we forgot what this country is all about? It's about working together for a common goal.

I was in the Military for 8 years and saw people from different races, beliefs and religions all working together for a common goal; making AMERICA a better and safer place. That is what we all need to remember, it's not about you or me. It's about making it better for our kids/grandkids, we have to start being a better guardian for our childrens future.

END RANT

Sorry Matthew,

Compromise has come to mean allowing a government that is already too big to grow at 5% instead of 10.

You can't compromise with wrong. My granddaughter will pay for what selfish people have done and continue to do in her name. She doesn't have a vote, but the Chinese are going to have a big say in her future, thanks to people who spend more than they make.

We don't share a common goal, your platitudes aside. The government is not my guardian. It is a slothful and arrogant servant that must be put in its place if a free people are to prosper.

The Department of Education isn't going to teach your child anything. The Agriculture Department isn't going to grow one ear of corn. The Energy Department won't heat a single house, or fuel a single car. We can't afford it, even if you ignore the fact that it's mostly useless.

None of this means that some government is not necessary. It is. The nanny state is not.

Semper Fi.

Well! Today is the big day for conservatives! Doesn't look good for Democrats!

And all I can do is laugh at the charade that is taking place before us, every election cycle, and realize essentially nothing will be changed, and we're all screwed regardless of who wins. Change will happen when we kick all the bums out, and the entire campaign election process needs to be revamped.

Still, I have my thanks to give. The usual cast of comic buffoons this election cycle, plus some new arrivals. Christine O'Donnell has provided the fodder for some of my best jokes. But I'll make my peace with her. I'll admit she's not a witch if she admits she's not me.

"And all I can do is laugh at the charade that is taking place before us, every election cycle, and realize essentially nothing will be changed, and we're all screwed regardless of who wins"

To quote Southpark, the philosophers of our time: It's a choice between a shit sandwich or a giant douche. It's always a choice between a shit sandwich or a giant douche.

To Christopher,

You are the one making a case. I'm questioning it. First, you didn't want to be caught by the spam filter. Now, you want to answer a question by saying to me "google it".

That is a very weak position. You should be willing to be specific to support your position.

Jesus CHrist how stupid are you people?

You want to put in more than one link?

drop the "http://www."

And post as many as you want - beacuse at that point it will just be text

We are all perfectly capable of copying and pasting

Watch

advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/1
1/01/the_politics_of_2.html

how hard was that?