« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What a Difference a Year Makes

A lost year for a lost president.

Just a year into the Obama Administration, things look very different than candidate Obama said they would last November.  Both in domestic and international affairs, the first year of Obama’s presidency must by any objective standard be judged a dismal failure.  His victories have largely been small and partisan, while his defeats have been large and bipartisan.  Obama has been ridiculed even in his moments of triumph, and he closes the year with the dubious distinction of becoming the most polarizing president in history, in the shortest amount of time ever.

On January 20, 2009, the new president’s approval rating stood at 68 percent in the Gallup poll.  Obama started his presidency with the highest approval number in the poll of any president since John F. Kennedy in 1961.  Only twelve percent said they disapproved of his job performance, a low bested only by George H.W. Bush in 1989 and one point lower than the 13 percent who disapproved of Ronald Reagan at the start of his first term in 1981.  Obama began on a high.

The new president chose to spend that political capital on rolling back several of George W. Bush’s administration’s programs.  He rescinded the prohibition on funding for abortions overseas, he announced the planned closure of the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and he ordered a halt to military commissions for terrorist suspects imprisoned there.

Domestically, he made passage of an economic stimulus package his first top priority.  With dire warnings of economic collapse and unemployment climbing to over eight percent, President Obama endorsed the eventual $787 billion package rammed through Congress with only three liberal Republican Senators in support.

Despite passage of the so-called stimulus – and some economists argue because of it – unemployment has risen to ten percent and shows scant evidence of coming back down soon.  Democrats are now considering a second round of stimulus modeled on the unsuccessful first round while the White House makes the Orwellian claim that it has rescued the economy from the brink of depression.

The public is not amused.  A solid majority of 53 percent, the same number that voted for him a year earlier, recently told Gallup they are dissatisfied with Obama’s handling of the economy.  Fifty-five percent disapprove of his job creation efforts.  That the stimulus has been a failure is evidenced by the fact that the administration recently announced that Obama would make a “hard pivot” to job creation in January.

On foreign policy, the Obama Administration’s first year efforts have met with little more success.  The president whose name merely placed in nomination was supposed to stop the rise of the oceans due to global warming wasn’t able to get the world to do more than “take notice” of a very weak tea agreement on carbon emissions in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Copenhagen in particular was not good to Obama in his first year.  Obama winged his way there in September to seal his hometown Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 summer games.  The delegates listened politely, took pictures, sought autographs, and promptly eliminated Chicago in the first round of balloting.  It was a public relations disaster for the president who promised to make the world love America again.

Obama spent the year jetting from capital to capital across the globe apologizing for his country; literally bowing and scraping before royalty and world leaders.  He capitulated to Russia on missile defense, and to Iran on nuclear weapons.  He ended the war on terror, and announced the coming end of the war in Afghanistan.  He refused to support a nascent revolution in Iran, and tried to foment one in Honduras.  He gave in to the world, and the world gave to him, awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in October.

But the award was met with derision here and abroad, with most serious commentators calling it premature at best.  Even Obama himself was forced to admit that he did not deserve the award, but accepted it anyway as a “call to action.”  But that phrase remains a hollow one, as Obama has shown precious little ability to call the world to action on any issue in his first year.  By the time he was awarded the prize in Oslo earlier this month, only nineteen percent of Americans were willing to say that he deserved it.

Back on the domestic front, Obama closed the year with a mad dash for health care legislation.  His first major push for health care nationalization ended in a conflagration of voter anger and town hall protests in August.  But the House passed a bill in November and the Senate rushed another version through this month, giving its bill final approval on Christmas Eve.  Americans, however, are soundly rejecting the gift, with fifty-five percent telling Rasmussen they disapprove of the plan.

All of this has led to a record first year collapse in Obama’s presidential approval rating.  The year that began with so much hope, optimism, and expectation ends with roughly half of Americans disapproving of his performance.  His 47 percent approval in the latest Gallup poll was the lowest rating achieved by a first-year president in the history of the poll.  The White House response was to criticize the poll, calling the most respected and longest running presidential approval survey, “meaningless.”

Candidate Barack Obama was a hope salesman in 2008.  And he did his job well, convincing 53% of the country that his mere presence in the White House alone would usher in a new way of doing business in Washington, a new reality in world affairs, and a brighter future for the United States and the world.

Perhaps he oversold.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • yoyo

    - when you have nothing to offer in the first place.

    Hope and Change?

    Change is easy – it was a given. Bush was gone, thus the “Change.”

    Hope, on the other hand…? To paraphrase Dave Ramsey: “‘Hope’ is not something they package in Washington. ‘Hope’ does not come FROM Washington. ‘Hope’ may reside there, but it does not come from there. ‘Hope’ comes from those in the ‘Fruited Plain.’ ‘Hope’ comes from YOU.”

    I have hope in the comfort that my Lord is in control and allows everything for his purpose.

    21 “And he changes the times and the seasons: he removes kings, and sets up kings: he gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
    22 He reveals the deep and secret things: he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him.
    23 I thank you, and praise you, O you God of my fathers, who have given me wisdom and might, and have made known to me now what we desired of you: for you have now made known to us the king’s matter.”

    Daniel, Chapter 2 AKJV

  • RedBeard

    …suckers. P.T. Barnum knew his customer base well, and so did Candidate Obama.

    Sorry to be so blunt, but those are the people who have now turned on Obama, when in fact everything he is doing, or not doing, is precisely what they should have expected all along. To be surprised and dismayed by his actions is a significant indicator of gross ignorance.

  • Crowe

    Yes, you hit the obvious highlights. But…

    His decision to publish the Bush-era “torture memos,” thereby giving our enemies a handbook on how to prepare for being held by Americans, has made us all less safe. Even the thought that the interrogators could be prosecuted has hurt our ability to defend ourselves. Plus there’s the question about whether enemy combatants need to be “mirandized” on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq by the Pfc’s and LCpl’s who are detaining them. His muddling of the legal status of the combatants his and failure to defend those who defend us all (see the recent granting to INTERPOL of immunities above and beyond what any domestic police agency enjoys) makes this guy a globalist’s dream.

    Other highlights of the Professor Progressive Presidency…

    Keeping quiet as agents of oppression attempted a coup in Honduras, drawing the census into the White House, appointing a neo-Marxist as green jobs czar, a pedophile as safe schools czar, a Latino/a-supremacist to the SCOTUS, a corrupt and spineless left-wing opportunist to AG, a nitwit to Homeland Security, and who knows what other unsavory characters to which other important positions…

    And does anyone think the “beer summit” made anything better?

    The failures are only starting to mount up; just wait until more of the decisions made at the top trickle down to us through the bureaucracies.

    • irishgirl

      how out of touch he is. Thanks for pointing out the “czars”. Very well put.

      • Crowe

        John Holdren is perhaps the worst of the lot.

        • mbecker908

          really pick “the worst of”.

    • LibertarianHawk

      ….what Obama thinks the country stood to gain from having those memos published.

      I realize the domestic political calculations of it — as well as the emotional ones for people who had emotional investment in that issue. And I also realize that he thinks he’s “atoning” to the world for our country’s transgressions during the dark years of Bush and Cheney.

      But even for those who think these were sins, what exactly did the country gain by having those memos declassified?

      A sense of moral redemption? To what end?

      • Achance

        try some Americans, maybe even Bush and Cheney, for war crimes. I think they won’t dare do it themselves, but if they can pave a way for the UN or one of its arms to do it, they’ll be more than happy.

        • Crowe

          Obama fancies himself the first president of a more powerful international governing body. Breaking down from within the institutions of the US which serve as the most potent barrier to that dream is the first step. Publishing the “torture memos,” and eventually putting Bush, Cheney, etc on trial internationally is a significant strike at the foundation of our government, gives the power to the ICC and its ilk, and sets the stage for further ICC/UN encroachment into our sovereignty.

          I think we will be saved only by his ineptness as a politician. He’s too green. If he had waited until he had been in the Senate a few more terms, and had learned how Washington and this country really work and figured out how actually to game our system, he might have succeeded. But since he tried so quickly he doesn’t have a chance to accomplish fully what he and the other anti-American globalists wish for, IMHO.

          He’s not the Manchurian Candidate, of course….. He’s the Indonesian Candidate.

        • Common_Cents

          I think if Obama tried to pass off any attempt at Bush or Cheney saying there is nothing that he can do, the American people would go all in.

          • Achance

            preferably some that you can have your media friends demonize; a “rogue” CIA operative, maybe one of those evil contract employees. Then once the precedent is set, go for the bigger fish. We’ve already seen that 52% of the electorate will believe anything. The 15 – 20% of Americans that will turn away from Idol and actually do something rather than applaud an assault on our sovereignty, would be easy to marginalize.

  • ellisclarke

    Barack Hussein Obama, must openly declare that any and all attempted criminal acts of terrorism by jihadist radical Islamist or Muslims extremists? fanatics henceforth will be considered by the United States as an attempted and continuing act of war by enemy combatants who all will be immediately turned over to the United States Military Police, under the Geneva Convention, for detention, interrogation, imprisonment and Military tribunals.

  • LibertarianHawk

    However, it’s definitely worth remembering the experience of Ronald Reagan. Forget all the contrasts between the two men — I’m not comparing them as men or presidents in any way. Rather, I’m just looking at their trajectories so far as the favor of American voters.

    Reagan became pretty unpopular in his first 2.5 years as president — after riding in on a similar wave of euphoric majesty. Both largely cast themselves as national redeemers.

    Redemption and renewal not only didn’t happen quickly with Reagan, arguably the worst economic period since the ’73-74 recession begun shortly after he took office. Prior to these last couple months, the last time we had double digit unemployment was during Reagan’s first term.

    And guess what Reagan’s critics were saying about him then? Exactly what you’re saying about Obama now: that he oversold and underdelivered. The GOP took a shellacking in the 1982 mid-term election as a result of it….and many thought at that time that Reagan would have a hard time being reelected.

    We all know how that turned out. The economy roared back beginning in 1983, Reagan easily claimed credit for it and subsequently made mincemeat of Walter Mondale.

    Now, it’s popular within my beloved conservative movement right now to say that the same couldn’t happen for Obama because his economic policies, unlike Reagan’s, won’t foster a similar turnaround.

    Perhaps. But it’s worth remembering that neither fiscal nor monetary policy are the only forces acting on an economy. They’re the best we can do to induce desirable results — but, ultimately, our ability to *control* the economy’s condition is limited.

    Consider the 90′s as an example. Both Bush 41 and Clinton raised taxes. In the world of conservative orthodoxy, this would serve as a drag on economic vitality. In fact, many conservatives maintain that the fatal flaw with Bush’s tax hike wasn’t that he broke his “Read My Lips” pledge, but that he helped trigger a recession.

    Well, I agree that — [i]ceteris paribus[/i] — taxes are a headwind against economic growth…and the higher the taxes, the stiffer the headwind.

    But as any Democrat will remind you, the Clinton tax hike was followed by a period of robust economic growth. And that is because in the real world, [i]ceteris[/i] is never actually [i]paribus[/i] (to butcher my Latin).

    Few people in 1993 foresaw the dot-com explosion which began somewhere around 1995 or so. For those of us who accept that higher taxes result in a net drag on economic growth, the only way we can describe the ensuing period is to say that the dot-com expansion was strong enough to overcome the higher tax rates.

    I’m guessing that 2010 is going to be as bad a year as 2009 has been for Obama and the Democrats, if not worse. Even the most optimistic liberal economists trying to put a positive spin on Obama’s policies are conceding that the job market is going to remain weak.

    What will 2011 and 2012 portend for Obama and his reelection hopes? I honestly don’t know. I don’t think his policies are doing him any favors — I’ll say that much. And, yeah, he’s clearly guilty of overselling and underdelivering thus far. Even his staunchest supporters have been reduced to giving him limp-wristed defenses.

    But none of us should forget that there are more forces acting upon an economy than tax, regulatory, trade and other governmental policies. As such, I don’t think it’s impossible that we could see a palpable economic turnaround in 2011 or so that Obama will claim and, in some measure, receive credit for engineering.

    • Warrior

      with much of what you say, but I think you draw the wrong conclusion, that is, cite the wrong fear.

      The real danger is that, since two thirds of the stimulus money will come into play shortly before the 2010 elections, it may be enough to keep a Dem majority in both houses. If that happens, we better start oiling up the guns or hiding them, one. Four years of this mess will kill us as a free country.

      Best case scenario, the stim money will have little effect, Obama’s rating will continue to tank, the American will continue to smell a rat, and TehWon will essentially become a lame duck the last two years of his presidency.

      Of course, with the ACORN crowd still around, any number of illicit/immoral gambits could skew reality to the point Obama & the Dems remain in power:

      1. ACORN & Co. steal enough votes to keep Dems in
      2. Politicized Census Bureau people recount districts in such a way the Dems can’t help but win and Repubs lose
      3. TehWon legalizes 20 million illegal aliens who in turn re-elect their putative benefactors — the Dems (and later, TehWon)
      4. A national crisis is manufactured by Rahm, et al (or, due to the Obumbler/Nepodumatano clowns’ own incompetence a REAL crisis occurs) and elections are suspended for the indefinite future

      Sound impossible? Gee, I hope so…

      • LibertarianHawk

        I will say that I think the current margins in both houses of Congress are going to prove too wide for the Republicans to surmount them and gain a majority in either one in 2010.

        But I’d be utterly shocked if the Democrats have any kind of miraculous political revival in the next 10 months…even if the economy shows more nominal strength in 2010 than it did this year.

        In order for positive economic performance to translate into political benefit, it has to not only be broadly tangible, it also has to gain a sense of sustaining. And 10 months simply isn’t enough time for that to happen, IMO.

        Just ask George HW Bush. He got beat in 1992 by “It’s the economy, stupid”. But, if you look back at economic data from that period, it’s clear that recovery had actually taken root before the election.

        It didn’t matter, though — because economic mood lags quantitative economic performance….particularly when it’s cycling from contraction into expansion.

        I’d say the biggest question with 2010 isn’t whether or not the Democrats will suffer a defeat at the polls, but what the extent of that defeat will be.

        But those who are tempted to write-off Obama as a spectacular political flameout (wrt 2012) would do well to remember what happened with Reagan. That’s all I’m saying.

        Of course, one could also counter that with the experience of Carter. Carter inherited a bad situation from Ford and, if anything, just made it that much worse over 4 years. I think it’s just as likely that Obama will follow that course.

        The point is: the economy is a beast that, good or bad, is not as much in our control as we sometimes think. Growth can come in spite of bad policy — just as contraction can come in spite of good policy.

        • janis

          on the economy. Ronald Reagan gave America and its citizens hope again that our best days were ahead of us, that we were a strong nation and a light of freedom in the world. Compare that to Obama’s message that America is no better than any other country and combine that with his constant kowtowing to the leaders of other nations. Add in his resolve not to keep America safe and his refusal to acknowledge that we are at war plus his determination to spend more money that we don’t have than any chief executive in our history.

          Then compare that with Ronald Reagan’s record of helping to bring down the Soviet empire and his frank appraisal of evil in the world. Obama has done nothing but make America weaker, less prosperous, and more in danger than we have ever been. Jobs won’t matter a hill of beans to a nation that is being relentlessly attacked by one terrorist incident after another.

        • Warrior

          Repub win in ’10 is not necessarily probative as to my point. What I believe is certain is that Obambi & Co are likely to lose their filibuster-proof majority. I also believe Obambi & Co. are fully aware of this and thus would be more prone to resort to nefarious means in order to retain or regain the reins of power.

          As I mentioned to “aesthete” below, even though the economic recovery was already in motion when Reagan was elected, it was not the determining factor in his win. As you say, “… economic mood lags quantitative economic performance…” However, it was Jimmy Carter’s bungling of the Iran-Hostage crisis which brought Reagan in.

          Remember, Carter was elected in the first place because he was “NOT NIXON/FORD” — he was a Sunday School teacher. And Obambi was elected because he was “NOT WHITE” — he was the antidote to years of media-inspired “middle-class white guilt.”

          Unfortunately for us, I believe this Chicago Mob bunch would not blink at using unsavory means to postpone or seriously skew the results of any election which would leave them without, or with seriously diminished, political power. The healthcare fight is a perfect example. Remember, Obambi is “…keeping score.”

          This guy is no Sunday School teacher and I sure as h*ll don’t trust him, either.

    • aesthete

      was well underway beginning in the late 70s, when Volcker at the Fed helped end stagflation. Also, Reagan and Tip O’Neill worked on hammering out a deal in such a way that it made clear what changes where to be made domestically. I just don’t see the uncertainty surrounding the economy wrt Obama’s domestic policies as resolving themselves over a 2-year span, simply because of the lack of knowledge concerning Dem leadership (is Pelosi, Reid, or Obama setting the agenda), and an inconsistent (read: non-existent) relationship between the “loyal opposition” and the ObamaDems. That’s besides the fact that no-one really knows what’s going on in the economy, much less how to fix it, as opposed to a general certainty concerning the economy, as Reagan and his advisors had after the stagflation fix confirmed classical economic thought. With the massive amounts of uncertainty permeating the economy, and large changes in the US economy still in the pipeline I wouldn’t be surprised to see an underperforming economy throughout Obama’s tenure, FDR-style. Simply put, Reagan’s MO was well-known, and business leaders could anticipate his response to a crisis. Obama’s MO, OTOH, is a complete mystery even after a year of “governance”, and no-one could tell you today what Obama’s “style” is any better than they could when Candidate Obama was wowing us (read: them) with his performance of “Wish Upon a Star”, politico-style. That is why things now will not turn out as they did in Reagan’s term, even if one factors in an out-of-left-field “bubble”.

      • Warrior

        also know this. Indeed, uncertainty may be their gameplan, rather than just a result of their endless bungling (I almost hope so.) It makes crises so much easier to manufacture and/or exploit. Which is why I believe they will resort to nefarious means to stay in power evetually.

        Although the Economic recovery was in place before Reagan’s election, it was Carter’s perceived ineptitude in dealing with the hostage crisis which brought Reagan in. Americans don’t like being seen as weaklings…

  • http://www.jeannie-ology.com jeannieology

    and not thought so highly of himself to think that without experience he could run the country.

    Obama is the taxi cab driver that got behind the wheel of a 747 and now with us on board, we’re going down.

    But all that matters is that Obama feels good about himself.

    www.jeannie-ology.com

    • Warrior

      I thought you were going to liken Obambi to the illegal alien cab driver who has only been in the country two months, but is full of condemnation about how stupid we all are and how he knows best about how to fix everything…

      But yeah, there is never enough praise for this megalomaniac…

  • student

    Obama was elected by masquerading as an intelligent moderate. Gullible people, seduced by his very good ability to read a teleprompter and believing that this implied great intelligence, voted for him over a Republican who was credible on national defense but has never understood nor defended free enterprise or limited government. Obama got is chance. He then followed the same script – saying he was doing one thing while acting in an opposite manner – classical magician style. Emergency wastage of a trillion dollars urgent stimulus that was not spent as a stimulus (< 1/4 in first year) but rather was used only to pay political debts and fuel the growth of government (the only sector that grew). Bailouts of banks who donated profusely to his campaign. Talking about a new politics while pursuing an Ostrich strategy in the war on terror – eschewing even mention of the word – stopping renditions, granting Miranda rights to terrorists, reducing surveillance, reinforcing political correctness, prosecuting zealous SEALs with the result of two successful terrorist attacks on US soil (Little Rock and Fort Hood) and a near miss at Detroit. Instead of admitting error his spokesmen in typical Obama all talk strategy insisted that “the system worked”. Bottom line is that he came close to fooling all the people briefly and most of the people for a prolonged and important time but he cannot fool all the people all the time. Americans are slow to conclusions and slow to anger but once we figure out someone is a bad actor we are quite unforgiving. Obama will for certain achieve the one thought unattainable feat of making Jimmy Carter look good by comparison. His only services to America are re-innoculating us against liberalism, destroying the Democrat party for a generation, and stimulating the real Americans who believe in free enterprise, small frugal limited government, freedom of conscience, and individual empowerment and responsibility to begin revitalizing the Republican party. America will survive the Obama plague and will arise like a Phoenix rededicated to freedom and capitalism.

  • liberty12

    he performed in Office was to sign Executive Order # 13489, thus sealing all of his records and banning their release. Hmmm…I wonder why that was the first thing he did? We still have yet to learn anything about his history…

    http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf

    Oh yeah, and why has he sealed his Illinois Senate records as well?

  • liberty12

    the statement should read “…sealing all of his records and banning their release, pending a decision from POTUS, POTUS Counsel, and AG.”

  • antisocial

    For instance he consistently talked down capitalism. He was a supporter of ACORN and Planned Parenthood. He consistently had the moral equivalence problem. Remember Georgia? He always wanted to be soft on Iran. He was always a supporter of healthcare rationing. He has always pushed fast track path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He was always pushing for “green economy” scam. He always wanted to bankrupt coal industry. He was always against US moral and military dominance. He always saw US as one of the countries in the world. He was always against missile defense shield. He was always for reducing military spending.

    We saw the race pushing in the election like never before. I know a lady in my neighborhood who was for Obama because “Wouldn’t it nice to have a black President”. I still recall James Carville fearing race riots.

    I am surprised why the morons are now turning on him. It is time to start saying with every post “We told you”. I say to them…. Suck it up.

    PS: Maybe change sounded good as a proposal but doesn’t sound good as a policy.

    • Maelstrom

      Antisocial, I agree totally. I opened my eyes and saw what Obama was all about during the campaign. I knew he was going to be a disaster in the White House – after all, he was so inexperienced and certainly didn’t gain any in his brief time in the Senate(he was never present). I said it in November and it bears repeating: For the first time in my life I was completely surprised and disappointed in the political intelligence of the American people. Usually they have a really good feel for what kind of leadership the country needs at that moment in time. They made a huge mistake. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen again.

      • antisocial

        In fact I came here when I realized McCain was going to lose. I think it was around 14th September 2008. Maybe for support. Maybe to see what is the best way to help.

        Anybody who is complaining is either a conservative or a moron.

        • skippingdog

          Whatever his shortcomings might otherwise be, Obama was a better choice last year than McCain — that’s why he’s President now.

          • Achance

            Too bad you never mastered that thinking stuff once you got out of the government school. You are out of school aren’t you? You aren’t down in mommy’s basement typing with only one hand are you?

          • HappyBunny

            And my friend Franz won’t appreciate your use of the term “dog” in your screen name. You should be looking over your shoulder.

          • DONTREADONME

            McCain was a far better choice than 0bama last year. Anything remotely non-marxist would have been a better choice.

          • mbecker908
          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx
          • louisiana

            I’m watching the “Dog Whisperer” & thinking Oboober would not be accepted by the pack, much less qualify as a “pack leader”. As a dog lover, I’m offended by skippingdog–maybe it should consider skipping hyena? buzzard?

          • aesthete

            True, he’s several levels below “dead white cat”, but hey, any port in a storm.

          • mbecker908
      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        and preferred to get caught up in the hysterics of the historic rather than an honest THOUGHTFUL choice. Very simple! They CHOSE to be STUPID because they cannot claim ignorance, when as again, they were warned and the information to understand who/what he was/is available for any idiot to look for themselves – they didn’t have to take anyones word for it!

        • antisocial

          Warning signs were everywhere. Ironically Barack Obama was saying all that stuff himself. 53 percent chose to put blinders on.

  • renny

    whether Bush and Cheney or whoever he and Holder can get their hands on but I think he’s too late.

    O needed to get out from under healthcare before the August break, so he could move on the krap and charade and immigration explosion before Thanksgiving, but he got nailed down by the Lilliputian American citizen, especially the elderly female senior citizen, a big mover in the tea parties.

    Now, with the Sen. teetering on the cusp of its absolutely necessary 60 votes, Obamanation and minions have to turn their minds to national security, a category that gives them the creeps, as the Reps. own it. Already, they’re screaming it’s Bush’ fault, and Reps. are only making political points (but that is the point), and O really, really is commander in chief. Momentarily, he looks like he’s channeling Tiger Woods on better days. How many golf games has he played?

    King-elect O also appeared on the scene just fractionally late for the left’s totalitarian aspirations as the net is now driving much of politics, the MSM has elected its last shill, the assault on FOX only made it stronger, and since they didn’t strike at talk radio this past year, it’s too late to kill the messages they don’t want to hear there either.

    By the time Congress is back in session, the membership will have heard an earful about the shenanigans called “deliberation”–buyoffs–in the Sen. and be much less eager to fall on their swords for Obamanationcare. That 47% is a killer.

    And when the country has turned enough, the MSM will turn, too, because it always eats its young. We’ll start getting school and college records here and there, nasty former roommate gossip and allegations, and eventually even the mysterious birth cert. will show up, and depending on it, precipitating a Const. crisis. It’s always a curse to live in interesting times.

  • Duke

    “Candidate Barack Obama was a hope salesman in 2008. And he did his job well, convincing 53% of the country that his mere presence in the White House alone would usher in a new way of doing business in Washington, a new reality in world affairs, and a brighter future for the United States and the world.”

    Obama was not a ‘hope salesman,’ he was a BS salesman with a mouth full of samples. I’m really shocked that so many of our fellow countrymen were hoodwinked by this slick Chicago crook. Now all America has to pay the price.

  • mbecker908

    It’s just that in the “real world” hope – as a commodity – IS BS.

    When it comes down to actually accomplishing anything, hope is not a plan.