The President didn't really write his book.

An author's style is distinctive, and the teleprompter doesn't sound anything like the audacity of hope. Which I wish was the audacity of accomplishment, measurable output or something like that.

You're looking at Zaphod Beeblebrox. His purpose is to distract. Someone else is running the country.

No. We would be better off if anyone were running the country.

Christie has a lot of good things going for him, but he's far too liberal in many areas of personal rights. I know I've seen you say you'd vote for Newt in a hot second, you may get the chance.

B.H.Obama's job is to wear the mask that his Fellow Travelers cannot bear. Once in office, he appointed scores of "progressive socialists" (yes, i mean communists fnord) and they run the country. His talents are standard for a politician, and i suspect he would have a measured IQ of one-hundred-point-zero: not stupid, nothing special.

Radwaste is dead on. The Vice President is supposed be the Zaphod Beeblebrox; that's my dream job.

I think Obama is a genuinely kind-hearted person who doesn't know how to deal with sociopaths. Kinda like Jimmy Carter.

What we need is someone from a cop/military background--many of them fully admit that they were tempted by a life of crime because they have mad crime skillz, yo, but chose to serve instead.

>> A President Who's A Bystander In The Oval Office

That's basically what Chris Matthews was ranting about a few weeks ago, and whether you agree w/ him politically or not, he's probably got a pretty good idea of what's actually going on w/ this administration.

I don't think that Obama is stupid either, but realistically he's never demonstrated the executive temperament of someone appropriate for the Presidency. He seems to actively avoid that role, beyond the speech making.

Keep in mind that almost all of his prior positions and appointments have been sinecures. He's been trading on the marvelousness of his persona for his entire adult life.

Chris Christie? I am monumentally unimpressed. He has already announced that he refuses to run for president, yet he wants a public platform from which he can armchair quarterback? As for inviting the other side to "solve this problem," the president deals with problems that a state governor will never touch.

If he isn't willing to waddle up to the plate, then he can restrict the use of his mouth for eating.

Besides, Obama already tried that, making plain during his campaign that he was going to be the one to get the parties working together...which is why I refused to vote for him. He had this notion, whether out of his naivete or arrogance, that he was going to be the one to get the parties working together. Yeah, right...

No, Obama was elected to do something, so he should have done it...even if he had to ram it down their throats. But instead, he wanted to play nicey-nice...he must have been in a coma during the Clinton years, if he thought that had even a glimmer of a chance of working.

The one thing I do agree with is his observation that the Teabaglicans and the OWSers are formed out of frustration with Washington's inability to get things done. But like the advice of Polonius to Laertes in "Hamlet," it's sage counsel spoken by an idiot. He undercuts his own message by the yellow streak running down his very wide back. If he's too craven to run for president, then he can keep his mouth off of those that actually have the gonads to do it.

>> But instead, he wanted to play nicey-nice

@Patrick he's really made no effort to play nice or bring anyone together. Do you known anyone who would characterize him that way, now that we're several years into his administration?

I think that's a big part of why his popular support has fallen away. He'd promised to work with and moderate both sides and then proceeded to demonize and belittle everyone on the 'other' side. Despite what people were promised, he's turned out to be the most divisive and partisan president in my lifetime.

The truth of the matter is that Obama misrepresented himself, his intentions, and basically promoted a whole body of lies in order to get himself elected. Every presidential candidate does that to some extent, but his whole persona as a candidate was a fabrication.

Obama ... should have done it...even if he had to ram it down their throats.

Measures that are rammed down the minority party's throats don't last. Measures that achieve a decent level of bipartisan support last.

Dwight Eisenhower was strongly opposed to Social Security, but because it had passed with strong bipartisan support he didn't try to get it eliminated when he was elected president.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have passed (and lasted as long as it has) if not for fact that it was passed with the strong support of Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in Congress (in fact, without Dirksen and company, it never would have passed).

Obamacare, on the other hand, was rammed down the opposition's throat by a strong Democratic majority ... and will very likely be repealed or severely curtailed after the next election. The fact that Pelosi and Reid never bothered to build widespread public support for it will make repealing it easier.

Even George W. Bush's "hated" tax cuts were passed with bipartisan support and were subsequently renewed when the opposition party gained control.

The American political system guarantees that one party cannot ram something down the other party's throats for long. Be glad that it does.

Obama was elected to do something....

What, exactly, was he elected to do? Other than not be George W. Bush?

Conan, actually, healthcare reform was one of the things he was elected to do. I agree the man is worthless, and the dems should have gone with Hillary, but there was most definitely things people wanted, other than not be George W. Bush...like not being white, so America can say, "Yay! We're not racist! We just elected a black guy!"

Next step, elect a woman so we can say we're not sexist.

Any 6th grader who's paid attention in class can tell you that it's not the president's job to come up with a budget or fund the federal government. That's the job of the Congress who has "the power of the purse".

Congress was responsible for passing a budget, Congress created the Super Committee, and the Super Committee was staffed by members of Congress. So how the hell can anyone blame the executive branch for congressional failures? Oh yea because there's a presidental election coming up! I guess if you can't attack political opponents over legitimate differences in policy, you can always resort to making things up.

My favorite Christie speech.

(sorry)

(The circuit).

I haven't seen much of Chris Christie other than the beautiful response he gave to that teacher who refused to believe the state was out of money, (I LOLed, I cried), but if he's that reality based all the time I'm on board.

"Oh yea because there's a presidental election coming up! I guess if you can't attack political opponents over legitimate differences in policy, you can always resort to making things up."

Well, there is that leadership thing. And as the de facto leader of the party that, for two years, held the Presidency and both houses of Congress, it was indeed incumbent on Obama to provide leadership in that area. But he punted, the Dem majority Congress never passed a budget during the first half of his term, and now here we are.

Christie has just told the Obama Faithful that their Emperor wears no clothes...

Too bad Christie isn't in the race.

Any 6th grader who's paid attention in class can tell you that it's not the president's job to come up with a budget or fund the federal government. That's the job of the Congress who has "the power of the purse". -- Mike Hunter at November 30, 2011 9:57 AM

Actually, the House, alone, has "the power of the purse".

If you followed the whole debt ceiling debate you heard about the Senate printing the bills off the internet to table it.

The real issue is that the House is no longer truly a representative body. Each House representative should be responsible to less than 100,000 citizens. That would be about thousand two hundred (3,200) representatives minimum in the house.

With those kinds of numbers -- do you think businesses would have a true amount of influence? What about special interests? What about you and your friends for the general welfare?

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was a mistake that gives large states and population centers control along with gerrymandering.

The Emperor: [to the Senate] In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.

[Senate fills with enormous applause]

Padmé: [to Bail Organa] So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

The President is just a bystander. They all are. After reading all the Watergate books I concluded that the President is totally out of touch with the outside world and the country is run by the Chief of Staff.

As far as I can tell, this woman, the Advice Goddess, devotes her life to two things: speaking about manners and healthy eating.

Chris Christie has distinguished himself by being known for two things: exceptionally bad manners and exceptionally unhealthy eating.

Yet this "goddess" endorses Mr. Christie here. Surely this is a joke.