NationStates Jolt Archive

The American presidency
Learning the hard way
Mar 26th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Barack Obama may at last be getting a grip. But he still needs to show more leadership, at home and abroad
http://media.economist.com/images/20090328/1309LD1.jpg

HILLARY CLINTON’S most effective quip, in her long struggle with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination last year, was that the Oval Office is no place for on-the-job training. It went to the heart of the nagging worry about the silver-tongued young senator from Illinois: that he lacked even the slightest executive experience, and that in his brief career he had never really stood up to powerful interests, whether in his home city of Chicago or in the wider world. Might Mrs Clinton have been right about her foe?

Not altogether. In foreign policy in particular Mr Obama has already done some commendable things. He has held out a sincere hand to Iran; he has ordered Guantánamo closed within a year; he has set himself firmly against torture. He has, as the world and this newspaper wanted, taken a less strident tone in dealing with friends and rivals alike.

But at home Mr Obama has had a difficult start. His performance has been weaker than those who endorsed his candidacy, including this newspaper, had hoped. Many of his strongest supporters—liberal columnists, prominent donors, Democratic Party stalwarts—have started to question him. As for those not so beholden, polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks. Mr Obama’s once-celestial approval ratings are about where George Bush’s were at this stage in his awful presidency. Despite his resounding electoral victory, his solid majorities in both chambers of Congress and the obvious goodwill of the bulk of the electorate, Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.

Empty posts, weak policies
There are two main reasons for this. The first is Mr Obama’s failure to grapple as fast and as single-mindedly with the economy as he should have done. His stimulus package, though huge, was subcontracted to Congress, which did a mediocre job: too much of the money will arrive too late to be of help in the current crisis. His budget, though in some ways more honest than his predecessor’s, is wildly optimistic. And he has taken too long to produce his plan for dealing with the trillions of dollars of toxic assets which fester on banks’ balance-sheets.

The failure to staff the Treasury is a shocking illustration of administrative drift. There are 23 slots at the department that need confirmation by the Senate, and only two have been filled. This is not the Senate’s fault. Mr Obama has made a series of bad picks of people who have chosen or been forced to withdraw; and it was only this week that he announced his candidates for two of the department’s four most senior posts. Filling such jobs is always a tortuous business in America, but Mr Obama has made it harder by insisting on a level of scrutiny far beyond anything previously attempted. Getting the Treasury team in place ought to have been his first priority.

Second, Mr Obama has mishandled his relations with both sides in Congress. Though he campaigned as a centrist and promised an era of post-partisan government, that’s not how he has behaved. His stimulus bill attracted only three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House. This bodes ill for the passage of more difficult projects, such as his big plans for carbon-emissions control and health-care reform. Keeping those promises will soon start to bedevil the administration. The Republicans must take their share of the blame for the breakdown. But if Mr Obama had done a better job of selling his package, and had worked harder at making sure that Republicans were included in drafting it, they would have found it more difficult to oppose his plans.

If Mr Obama cannot work with the Republicans, he needs to be certain that he controls his own party. Unfortunately, he seems unable to. Put bluntly, the Democrats are messing him around. They are pushing pro-trade-union legislation (notably a measure to get rid of secret ballots) even though he doesn’t want them to do so; they have been roughing up the bankers even though it makes his task of fixing the economy much harder; they have stuffed his stimulus package and his appropriations bill with pork, even though this damages him and his party in the eyes of the electorate. Worst of all, he is letting them get away with it.

Lead, dammit
There are some signs that Mr Obama’s administration is learning. This week the battered treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, has at last come up with a detailed plan to rescue the banks (see article and article). Its success is far from guaranteed, and the mood of Congress and the public has soured to the point where, should this plan fail, getting another one off the drawing-board will be exceedingly hard. But the plan at least demonstrates the administration’s acceptance that it must work with the bankers, instead of riding the wave of popular opinion against them, if it is to repair America’s economy. And it’s not just in the domestic arena that Mr Obama has demonstrated his willingness to learn: on Iraq, he has intelligently recalibrated his views, coming up with a plan for withdrawal that seeks to consolidate the gains in Iraq while limiting the costs to America.

But Mr Obama has a long way to travel if he is to serve his country—and the world—as he should. Take the G20 meeting in London, to which he will head at the end of next week. The most important task for this would-be institution is to set itself firmly against protectionism at a time when most of its members are engaged in a game of creeping beggar-thy-neighbour. Yet how can Mr Obama lead the fight when he has just pandered to America’s unions by sparking a minor trade war with Mexico? And how can he set a new course for NATO at its 60th-anniversary summit a few days later if he is appeasing his party with talk of leaving Afghanistan?

In an accomplished press conference this week, Mr Obama reminded the world what an impressive politician he can be. He has a capacity to inspire that is unmatched abroad or at home. He holds a strong hand when it comes to the Democrats, many of whom owe their seats to his popularity at last year’s election. Now he must play it.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13362895

The Economist is spot on here, in my opinion in saying that Mr. Obama's performance has been weaker than everyone has been hoping for, including The Economist which had endorsed Obama for Presidency, although with reservation. . .

What do you think? For those of you who don't want to spend all but a few minutes reading the entire article, I've bolded around some main points that are must-reads, although reading the entire article would obviously be best.

Woot! The Economist! I love to read it; it makes my "liberal" friends think I'm "conservative," and my "conservative" friends think I'm "liberal." LOL!
Always thought-provoking and often spot-on.

tl;dr :p

Come on people, he's been in office for three months! Give the poor man a break, would you?

The Economists mistake is forgetting that Obama is still a politician.

Well, I am likely in the minority here, but I voted for Bob Barr last election. I wished Obama well, but he has lived up to be exactly what I thought he would be. I'm not sure if he'll be as bad as Bush, but he's certainly trying, in my opinion. I hate the bailouts, hated them when Bush did them, hated them when McCain voted for them, and I hate them when Obama puts them forward. It's ruining this country's finances, if they weren't ruined enough.

tl;dr :p

Come on people, he's been in office for three months! Give the poor man a break, would you?
Come on, tl;dr is lame. I've even bolded the areas to read around so just read those parts. It's a very good article and I think you'll be suprised after reading . . . if you've truley read the article you wouldn't be saying "come on, he's been in office for three months, give him a break!" because that's just not the point of this article. ;)
Woot! The Economist! I love to read it; it makes my "liberal" friends think I'm "conservative," and my "conservative" friends think I'm "liberal." LOL!
Always thought-provoking and often spot-on.
It's my bible.
The Economists mistake is forgetting that Obama is still a politician.
It's not though. It showing that as a politician he has a glorious gift and that is the ability to inspire . . . but as a leader he's been a bit weak and making a few mistakes, although he has also done quite a few good things too, internationally.

tl;dr :p

Come on people, he's been in office for three months! Give the poor man a break, would you?

Apparently that's no excuse for getting more shit done than the 308 members who make up the House of Commons here in Canada.

Also, I dislike this poll and shall not vote in it as it will distort my opinion on the topic.

The poll forgets that there is more to politics than "left" and "right." In this spectrum you can have hippies, communist and fascist dictators, anarcho-capitalists, and what have you. I would say I identify as libertarian.

I think the real question here is, Is TAI hoping the President's performance is weaker than we hoped?

And, for the record, No, he's made great strides in fixing the terrible damage W did to our PR, that in itself is a major accomplishment this soon...

He's getting major reforms in Healthcare, and is paving the way for Fuel Efficient cars to finally make major headway into the American Market...

this soon, those are some major accomplishments...

The poll forgets that there is more to politics than "left" and "right." In this spectrum you can have hippies, communist and fascist dictators, anarcho-capitalists, and what have you. I would say I identify as libertarian.
Yes I know that, obviously, but these polls are limited. So you'll just have to poll as what you tend to gravitate towards or not poll. :)

I think The Economist is suffering a slight bout of Media ADD. Obviously they don't have it as bad as the US media do, but still -- they must have some idea of how complex these issues are. They must have some inkling of how corrupt the US federal government has become, particularly since Bush, and thus how difficult it is to work through a system clogged at every point.

As for the complaint that he "subcontracted" the economic stimulus to Congress -- is The Economist under the impression that we elected a king? Were they that bamboozled by Bush? I would be very surprised if they were. The degree to which Congress is managing the stimulus is precisely the way the US system works. If Congress is not doing a good job, that is Congress's fault, not Obama's. He has no choice of any other way to go about passing a stimulus package. The Congress controls the nation's purse. That's the rule.

As for the difficulties in staffing Treasury -- that goes back to the pervasive corruption in government and the corrupt government/corporate overlap, which has always been an issue in the US, but which became particularly bad recently under Bush. (It has been worse before, but the present circumstances make it more heinous now.) If Obama made any serious mistake in this regard, it was stating publicly before he started filling his cabinet that he would impose strict ethics standards. That narrowed his pool considerably and had two negative effects -- it made some very qualified professionals refuse jobs because they feared the scrutiny they would undergo, and it gave ammunition to obstructionist Republicans to go after Obama's nominess to a degree beyond what they applied to other presidents' nominees.

I am by no means satisfied with everything Obama has done so far. But "so far" is not very far at all. It isn't even the traditional benchmark of 100 days yet. I am disappointed in The Economist for passing judgment prematurely. I also criticize them for juding Obama in a vacuum, seemingly ignoring the enormouse pressures, complexity, and opposition he faces with all of these domestic issues.

In sum, I think The Economist is full of whiney "when are we gonna get what WE want?" crap.

Oh course his performance is weaker then anticipated. The media billed his as being able to walk on water and capable of saving the economy by saying change 3 times while clicking his heels.
Now for disappointed to early to say that.

I think The Economist is suffering a slight bout of Media ADD. Obviously they don't have it as bad as the US media do, but still -- they must have some idea of how complex these issues are. They must have some inkling of how corrupt the US federal government has become, particularly since Bush, and thus how difficult it is to work through a system clogged at every point.

As for the complaint that he "subcontracted" the economic stimulus to Congress -- is The Economist under the impression that we elected a king? Were they that bamboozled by Bush? I would be very surprised if they were. The degree to which Congress is managing the stimulus is precisely the way the US system works. If Congress is not doing a good job, that is Congress's fault, not Obama's. He has no choice of any other way to go about passing a stimulus package. The Congress controls the nation's purse. That's the rule.

As for the difficulties in staffing Treasury -- that goes back to the pervasive corruption in government and the corrupt government/corporate overlap, which has always been an issue in the US, but which became particularly bad recently under Bush. (It has been worse before, but the present circumstances make it more heinous now.) If Obama made any serious mistake in this regard, it was stating publicly before he started filling his cabinet that he would impose strict ethics standards. That narrowed his pool considerably and had two negative effects -- it made some very qualified professionals refuse jobs because they feared the scrutiny they would undergo, and it gave ammunition to obstructionist Republicans to go after Obama's nominess to a degree beyond what they applied to other presidents' nominees.

I am by no means satisfied with everything Obama has done so far. But "so far" is not very far at all. It isn't even the traditional benchmark of 100 days yet. I am disappointed in The Economist for passing judgment prematurely. I also criticize them for juding Obama in a vacuum, seemingly ignoring the enormouse pressures, complexity, and opposition he faces with all of these domestic issues.

In sum, I think The Economist is full of whiney "when are we gonna get what WE want?" crap.

First, I'm going to do somthing that you will almost never see me do. I'm going to applaud you for that post. Well thought out and it shows that you not only read the article but actually listend (and disagreed, which is fine) to what it said.

Then, I'm going disagree with some parts of what you said. :p

1. The point of the stimulus bill was that it was Obama's stimulus bill. It was Obama who said he was going to be drafting up a bill, working hand in hand with republicans and democrats to manage an efficient, clean and necessary stimulus bill. What happend in reality was he gave a blank paper to Pelosi and her goons and, signed it with his name and said, "here, fill this out with what you think we need." Then the democrats went to town. You're correct in stating Congress holds the purse of America, but, and be honest, the Democrats were not about to say no to an economic stimulus plan that Obama, the hero of their election, created and asked them to pay for.

2. The corruption in the system is well known by everyone, but Obama still should have put staffing the Treasury over everything else, and worked harder on that. "The system is too corrupt" is not an excuse when the economy is our absolute #1 issue right now.

Once again, the "I tend to be cynical about politics" crowd has been left out of the poll :(

what about a poll option for not left or right winged.

what about a poll option for not left or right winged.

cause that would make you a COMMUNIST!!!! :eek::mad::eek2:

cause that would make you a COMMUNIST!!!! :eek::mad::eek2:

I prefer the term individualist anarchist.

I prefer the term individualist anarchist.
I didn't put an option for anarchists because you'll grow out of it. ;)

I didn't put an option for anarchists because you'll grow out of it. ;)

Yes then I will become a libertarian.

Once again, the "I tend to be cynical about politics" crowd has been left out of the poll :(

The "I'm not a strawman and had realistic expectations" option is also absent.

I think The Economist is suffering a slight bout of Media ADD. Obviously they don't have it as bad as the US media do, but still -- they must have some idea of how complex these issues are. They must have some inkling of how corrupt the US federal government has become, particularly since Bush, and thus how difficult it is to work through a system clogged at every point.

As for the complaint that he "subcontracted" the economic stimulus to Congress -- is The Economist under the impression that we elected a king? Were they that bamboozled by Bush? I would be very surprised if they were. The degree to which Congress is managing the stimulus is precisely the way the US system works. If Congress is not doing a good job, that is Congress's fault, not Obama's. He has no choice of any other way to go about passing a stimulus package. The Congress controls the nation's purse. That's the rule.

As for the difficulties in staffing Treasury -- that goes back to the pervasive corruption in government and the corrupt government/corporate overlap, which has always been an issue in the US, but which became particularly bad recently under Bush. (It has been worse before, but the present circumstances make it more heinous now.) If Obama made any serious mistake in this regard, it was stating publicly before he started filling his cabinet that he would impose strict ethics standards. That narrowed his pool considerably and had two negative effects -- it made some very qualified professionals refuse jobs because they feared the scrutiny they would undergo, and it gave ammunition to obstructionist Republicans to go after Obama's nominess to a degree beyond what they applied to other presidents' nominees.

I am by no means satisfied with everything Obama has done so far. But "so far" is not very far at all. It isn't even the traditional benchmark of 100 days yet. I am disappointed in The Economist for passing judgment prematurely. I also criticize them for juding Obama in a vacuum, seemingly ignoring the enormouse pressures, complexity, and opposition he faces with all of these domestic issues.

In sum, I think The Economist is full of whiney "when are we gonna get what WE want?" crap.

This is a very good post.

I think part of the problem is that the economist is militantly bailout for the banks and Obama not so much. They have been calling for the taxpayer to kiss the boo-boo and make it better for quite some time now.

Yet, on the other hand I get the feeling that the more Obama looks into this, the more he is concerned that there is some sort of massive con-job being pulled.

By all accounts he told the top banking execs: "the only thing between you and the pitchforks is my administration". I like that. Shows character.

As such, I am willing to give him a little bit more time because I think he might actually come around to doing the right thing. (He's already shown the character to admit that the US might have been partly at fault, rather than the mantra that "nobody can see this coming").

That said, if I don't see some major slap downs and prosecutions at some point then I am going to have to conclude he is MOTS.

The Economist is...

...trying to sell copies.

That's about the strength of it.

What The Economist thinks Obama should do, is what the Economist thinks he should do - it's hardly a surprise that they have a very specific agenda which they think he SHOULD have followed, and that they'll see any deviation from as a failing.


If, on the other hand, you don't care whether Obama is fitting into the wet dreams of this one publication... the article is a waste of time.

Yes then I will become a libertarian.

Ah, the Rich Man's Anarchist ;)

Ah, the Rich Man's Anarchist ;)

Ban all government... except the police to keep my stuff safe.

I prefer the term individualist anarchist.

That doesn't actually excuse you from the 'left' or 'right' spectrum, though...

That doesn't actually excuse you from the 'left' or 'right' spectrum, though...

Well the problem I have is left or right spectrum depends on the terms.
My economics and Civil liberty beliefs don't fit with either party, but a good mix of both.

I think part of the problem is that the economist is militantly bailout for the banks

I don't really think this is the case at all. I haven't read anything from them to suggest this.

...trying to sell copies.


That's easy to say about any publication.


What The Economist thinks Obama should do, is what the Economist thinks he should do - it's hardly a surprise that they have a very specific agenda which they think he SHOULD have followed

Not really. Also, the economist is not a hivemind, in fact, the writers of it do contradict each other slightly from time to time.

Define "weaker."

I don't really think this is the case at all. I haven't read anything from them to suggest this.


Yeah, look, I stopped reading it closely about a year ago because I couldn't stand their pro-aggregate demand growth worried about inflation nonsense. So you might be right. I do remember them being mightily pleased with the Bear Stearns crime however.

But up until that point, they didn't seem all that keen on, you know, actually letting the market do it's job. And I have the current edition, and I'll look at it, but I am willing to bet they are all over the idea that plenty more money should be spent by governments to pull us out of whatever we are in, and that if the banking system isn't returned to health we are all fucked. U.S.W. (With a few equivocations in case it doesn't work after all).

Possibly I am so jaded I am not an honest broker about this however.

That said, it's a major fade.

Yeah, look, I stopped reading it closely about a year ago because I couldn't stand their pro-aggregate demand growth worried about inflation nonsense. So you might be right. I do remember them being mightily pleased with the Bear Stearns crime however.

But up until that point, they didn't seem all that keen on, you know, actually letting the market do it's job. And I have the current edition, and I'll look at it, but I am willing to bet they are all over the idea that plenty more money should be spent by governments to pull us out of whatever we are in, and that if the banking system isn't returned to health we are all fucked. U.S.W. (With a few equivocations in case it doesn't work after all).

Possibly I am so jaded I am not an honest broker about this however.

That said, it's a major fade.

Well, I don't read it much, or at least, I normally skim read, maybe if I read with more scrutiny I'd pick up on this.

Yeah, look, I stopped reading it closely about a year ago because I couldn't stand their pro-aggregate demand growth worried about inflation nonsense. So you might be right. I do remember them being mightily pleased with the Bear Stearns crime however.

But up until that point, they didn't seem all that keen on, you know, actually letting the market do it's job. And I have the current edition, and I'll look at it, but I am willing to bet they are all over the idea that plenty more money should be spent by governments to pull us out of whatever we are in, and that if the banking system isn't returned to health we are all fucked. U.S.W. (With a few equivocations in case it doesn't work after all).

Possibly I am so jaded I am not an honest broker about this however.

That said, it's a major fade.

Does that mean Und. So. Weiter?

Does that mean Und. So. Weiter?

das ist moglich

That's easy to say about any publication.


But... we're not discussing 'any publication'...


Not really. Also, the economist is not a hivemind, in fact, the writers of it do contradict each other slightly from time to time.

Which is irrelevent, because the article itself pretty clearly sets out what 'the Economist' thinks should have been done, and how Obama has 'failed' to do it.

Which is irrelevent, because the article itself pretty clearly sets out what 'the Economist' thinks should have been done, and how Obama has 'failed' to do it.

It seems to me that they were somewhat judging by Obama's own parameters, by his own promises. Even so, obviously if you're going to judge someone, you would need parameters, I don't understand why this is a criticism. If you were to judge without specific parameters, surely that would be a worse, more arbitrary judgement.

das ist moglich
Haha, ja das hab ich gedacht, aber ich sagte mir . . . hmm . . . das klingt ja ein bissli komisch, weil du, außer "U.S.W", alles auf Englisch geschrieben hast!:p
Which is irrelevent, because the article itself pretty clearly sets out what 'the Economist' thinks should have been done, and how Obama has 'failed' to do it.
Failing to staff the Treasury is a legit criticism, regardless of what political/economic agenda The Economist promotes.

It seems to me that they were somewhat judging by Obama's own parameters, by his own promises. Even so, obviously if you're going to judge someone, you would need parameters, I don't understand why this is a criticism. If you were to judge without specific parameters, surely that would be a worse, more arbitrary judgement.

I'm not sure what you think the point is, that you're trying to make.

I'm not saying that the Economist is wrong to judge Obama by the parameters they sketch out as being the ones they think Obama should be judged by.

I'm saying that - if you don't care about the Economist's position, they're not doing anything that impacts beyond their own readership.

So - it's probably a really important article for... say... TAI, but I couldn't really care less... because I don't care about their agenda.

So - it's probably a really important article for... say... TAI, but I couldn't really care less... because I don't care about their agenda.

Well I didn't read the article as being particularly agendered (is that a word?), by any means. And as I already said, they seemed to be judging him by Obama's own agenda somewhat. Also, it's not useless even if it did have a heavy agenda, as it still has informative descriptions of events so you can judge for yourself if you don't like their agenda.

I'm not sure what you think the point is, that you're trying to make.

I'm not saying that the Economist is wrong to judge Obama by the parameters they sketch out as being the ones they think Obama should be judged by.

I'm saying that - if you don't care about the Economist's position, they're not doing anything that impacts beyond their own readership.

So - it's probably a really important article for... say... TAI, but I couldn't really care less... because I don't care about their agenda.
Fortunately (or unfortunately :p) The Economist has quite a high brow and important readership:

In 2007, it reported an average circulation of just over 1.3 million copies per issue[4], about half of which are sold in North America.[5]

The Economist claims it "is not a chronicle of economics."[6] Rather, it aims "to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."[7] It practices advocacy journalism in taking an editorial stance based on free trade and globalisation. It targets highly educated readers and boasts an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_economist

Failing to staff the Treasury is a legit criticism, regardless of what political/economic agenda The Economist promotes.

Sure, it's a legit criticism. It's a criticism I have of the current administration, also. But it's not a big deal, and it's way down on the list.

The Economist article clearly prioritises it - which is cool.

But, it's like me being excited about the Depeche Mode side-projects. If you're not interested in Dave Gahan's solo material, it's not going to make any difference to your day.

First, I'm going to do somthing that you will almost never see me do. I'm going to applaud you for that post. Well thought out and it shows that you not only read the article but actually listend (and disagreed, which is fine) to what it said.

Then, I'm going disagree with some parts of what you said. :p

1. The point of the stimulus bill was that it was Obama's stimulus bill. It was Obama who said he was going to be drafting up a bill, working hand in hand with republicans and democrats to manage an efficient, clean and necessary stimulus bill. What happend in reality was he gave a blank paper to Pelosi and her goons and, signed it with his name and said, "here, fill this out with what you think we need." Then the democrats went to town. You're correct in stating Congress holds the purse of America, but, and be honest, the Democrats were not about to say no to an economic stimulus plan that Obama, the hero of their election, created and asked them to pay for.
So your objection is that Obama should have just ramrodded his way through Congress in despite of the Contitution? And you blame him for not doing that?

And you further assume, apparently without any basis, that if hte Democrats are not cooperating with Obama, it's because he isn't doing ...what, precisely? Ramrodding them, too? Or just not asking politely enough? Or what?

Your objection is nonsense.

2. The corruption in the system is well known by everyone, but Obama still should have put staffing the Treasury over everything else, and worked harder on that. "The system is too corrupt" is not an excuse when the economy is our absolute #1 issue right now.
Nonsense again. Are you not aware of how many seats he has to fill, how many offerees have turned down those jobs, how many have withdrawn under pressure, and how many are currently awaiting Congressional review for jobs that need it? He's not doing nothing, you know. The process is in progress.

As G&D pointed out, he can't get things done just by saying the magic words and clicking his heels three times. The process takes time even under normal circumstances (it took Clinton several months to complete his cabinet, too), and these are not normal circumstances. In these circumstances, we face an unreasonably obstructionist faction in Congress AND an unreasonably impatient demand for fast results from the media and parts of the public.

Sure, it's a legit criticism. It's a criticism I have of the current administration, also. But it's not a big deal, and it's way down on the list.

The Economist article clearly prioritises it - which is cool.

But, it's like me being excited about the Depeche Mode side-projects. If you're not interested in Dave Gahan's solo material, it's not going to make any difference to your day.

Except that the failures or weakness of the current administration do matter, and it's highly irrelevant under what company name a newspaper/magazine discusses those issues. It doesn't detract from those issues being important issues.

Also, The Economist "targets highly educated readers and boasts an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers."

This is a very good post.

I think part of the problem is that the economist is militantly bailout for the banks and Obama not so much. They have been calling for the taxpayer to kiss the boo-boo and make it better for quite some time now.

Yet, on the other hand I get the feeling that the more Obama looks into this, the more he is concerned that there is some sort of massive con-job being pulled.

By all accounts he told the top banking execs: "the only thing between you and the pitchforks is my administration". I like that. Shows character.

As such, I am willing to give him a little bit more time because I think he might actually come around to doing the right thing. (He's already shown the character to admit that the US might have been partly at fault, rather than the mantra that "nobody can see this coming").

That said, if I don't see some major slap downs and prosecutions at some point then I am going to have to conclude he is MOTS.
Agreed. Although I keep insisting on the 100 days benchmark before making judgments about his performance so far, considering what he is tasked with doing, I am willing to give him a full year before I judge thumbs up or down. And if I see caving to corporate interests, or anything like the old corruption-as-usual, I will be very, very unamused.

Fortunately (or unfortunately :p) The Economist has quite a high brow and important readership:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_economist

Something of an appeal to authority. Amusingly, "targets highly educated readers and boasts an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers" would probably be at least equally true of Playboy.

Something of an appeal to authority. Amusingly, "targets highly educated readers and boasts an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers" would probably be at least equally true of Playboy.

They read it for the articles.

Something of an appeal to authority. Amusingly, "targets highly educated readers and boasts an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers" would probably be at least equally true of Playboy.

But, playboy does not focus on politics or the economy.

However if Hugh Heffiner told me to vote one way or the other I would listen, cant risk being cut off from the playboy bunnies.

Except that the failures or weakness of the current administration do matter...

No, they don't.

If Obama doesn't have enough bums on seats in the Treasury, to get it ticking by while he deals with everything on his plate - that matters.

Ultimately, judging a less-than-full Treasury as a failure is nonsensical. Saying 'he hasn't fixed the recession' is nonsensical. Making a big deal about whether or not he has dealt with toxic assets, yet... is nonsensical.

What matters - will be whether the country ticks over, succeeds, and the problems get fixed. Arbitrary timelines and checklists of how 'person x' might do it... aren't nearly as important as results.

They read it for the articles.

Play boy has articles ?

But, playboy does not focus on politics or the economy.


Counterpoint: the 'alternative' media has been far more searching and accurate when reporting the banking crises.

I'd say it's not up to Obama to fix anything economy wise. He didn't make it, and it's not his job.

What we need now is honesty, and most of all, lots of prosecutions and clawbacks. This is the real work for his administration.

But, playboy does not focus on politics or the economy.


Right.

Which means, given somewhat equivalent quality of journalism, similar rigour and intellectual honesty - the Playboy articles would likely be more relevant and give a better picture of the overall success or failure of the administration.

Right.

Which means, given somewhat equivalent quality of journalism, similar rigour and intellectual honesty - the Playboy articles would likely be more relevant and give a better picture of the overall success or failure of the administration.

Because Obama allowed a playboy photo shoot on the white house lawn?

I do love The Economist (est. 1843).

Yes, Obama is weaker than I expected. He is postponing the withdrawal from Iraq and increasing military spending.

tl;dr :p

Come on people, he's been in office for three months! Give the poor man a break, would you?

The President never deserves "a break".

Define "weaker."

Lacking the courage to do what he said he would.

The Economist is spot on here, in my opinion in saying that Mr. Obama's performance has been weaker than everyone has been hoping for, including The Economist which had endorsed Obama for Presidency, although with reservation. . .

What do you think? For those of you who don't want to spend all but a few minutes reading the entire article, I've bolded around some main points that are must-reads, although reading the entire article would obviously be best.

Meh, it's an interesting article, but we aren't only about 10 weeks into the Obama Administration? A lot has been accomplished and the groundwork is being set for great things.

I would note that it is especially humorous to hear critiques of President Obama based on the Republican's failure to cooperate with him. :rolleyes:

I would note that it is especially humorous to hear critiques of President Obama based on the Republican's failure to cooperate with him. :rolleyes:

Well be fair, his treasury sec has found a way to spend 2trillion without congress getting a look in.

And he's tacitly approved Ben's QE policies.

Those are both troubling moves, and they have nothing to do with the legislature.

It's not a partisan issue per se.

The poll is flawed, us non-US Americans have subscribe to a variety of opinions and prejudices not defined by the labels left and right. As for the question - no I'm not a supporter of barrack Obama and no I'm not disappointed. I fully expected Obama to serve the interests of the top 1% of the population just as every president since Kennedy has.

The poll is flawed, us non-US Americans have subscribe to a variety of opinions and prejudices not defined by the labels left and right. As for the question - no I'm not a supporter of barrack Obama and no I'm not disappointed. I fully expected Obama to serve the interests of the top 1% of the population just as every president since Kennedy has.

that and do you mean economic left/right or political left/right

Change the question from "hoped" to "expected" and you'd be spot on.

Well be fair, his treasury sec has found a way to spend 2trillion without congress getting a look in.

And he's tacitly approved Ben's QE policies.

Those are both troubling moves, and they have nothing to do with the legislature.

It's not a partisan issue per se.

I do agree that does scare me.

Change the question from "hoped" to "expected" and you'd be spot on.

Fooooooort Suuuuumteeeeeeeeeeer!!!

Fooooooort Suuuuumteeeeeeeeeeer!!!

It just officially got old. There... you over did it. Now no one else can say it. Hope you feel proud of yourself.

It just officially got old. There... you over did it. Now no one else can say it. Hope you feel proud of yourself.

We do can still call him Leeroy, though, right?

We do can still call him Leeroy, though, right?

no. Someone give Heikoku a red card he is ruining all the Meme's

We do can still call him Leeroy, though, right?

Please! What did modal verbs do to you to deserve such treatment?

You do can certainly if old not it is yes.

Because the president controls the economy... wait...
About that...
But seriously congress kind of matters more for internal affairs… but even they dont control the economy... well for the most part.

Because the president controls the economy... wait...
About that...
But seriously congress kind of matters more for internal affairs… but even they dont control the economy... well for the most part.

In my experience neither can make the economy run well, but they care certainly have a hand in ruining it.

Well yeah they can tax or regulate it to death and the occasional subsidy but you can’t run an economy relaying on those things. IT causes massive amounts of debt if used to frequently and in those industries in which it is used tends to cause inefficiencies in their operations sometimes to the point that without them they would fail outright. Baring the occasional infant industry that needs funds to get off the ground but in that case they would get capital from elsewhere if the market thought it was viable or would be viable at any point in the future.

Please! What did modal verbs do to you to deserve such treatment?

You do can certainly if old not it is yes.

Wrong usage? Thanks for the heads-up.

I'm neither left nor right, and I knew Obama could never possibly live up to the hopes of seemingly half the world, but I didn't expect him to be this bad.

I'm neither left nor right, and I knew Obama could never possibly live up to the hopes of seemingly half the world, but I didn't expect him to be this bad.
in what way to you find it to be "this bad"?

i find that he seems to be working hard on the things he said he would be trying to get done.

Lacking the courage to do what he said he would.
Another little kid in the backseat, chanting, "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" ad nauseum.

Also:
Meh, it's an interesting article, but we aren't only about 10 weeks into the Obama Administration? A lot has been accomplished and the groundwork is being set for great things.

I would note that it is especially humorous to hear critiques of President Obama based on the Republican's failure to cooperate with him. :rolleyes:
This ^^ in spades. What these rightwingers lack in competence, they apparently make up in balls.

And:
in what way to you find it to be "this bad"?

i find that he seems to be working hard on the things he said he would be trying to get done.
QFT. He is obviously in the middle of doing everything he is being blamed for not doing. The urge to just start slapping many Americans upside their heads for being just ridiculous is becoming hard to resist.

This ^^ in spades. What these rightwingers lack in competence, they apparently make up in balls.

I assume by "balls" you mean "single-minded ignorance and hypocrisy."

Another little kid in the backseat, chanting, "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" ad nauseum.

Also:

This ^^ in spades. What these rightwingers lack in competence, they apparently make up in balls.

And:

QFT. He is obviously in the middle of doing everything he is being blamed for not doing. The urge to just start slapping many Americans upside their heads for being just ridiculous is becoming hard to resist.
blaming the president for not having done more to get his full agenda passed and for not being able to work through the ponderous US political/legislative system as if it didnt exist is willfully ignoring reality.

I assume by "balls" you mean "single-minded ignorance and hypocrisy."

Show how they are ignorant (which will be tough, seeing as the magazine is regarded as one of the most informative publications on current affairs out there by many, and who's writers aren't just a bunch of people with some journalism or English degree, but are serious academics in these fields). Show how they are hypocritical.

I assume by "balls" you mean "single-minded ignorance and hypocrisy."
Two balls, one labeled "ignorant", the other labeled "hypocrite." Yep. And both big and made of brass -- all shined up. Clang-clang.

blaming the president for not having done more to get his full agenda passed and for not being able to work through the ponderous US political/legislative system as if it didnt exist is willfully ignoring reality.
Damn straight, and well said.

Change the question from "hoped" to "expected" and you'd be spot on.

I agree. Hes done about what I expected him to get done in ten weeks. Began closing Gitmo, ended governmental endoresment of torture, began health care and education reform...in general laid the groundwork to fix all the shit Bush fucked up.

Yep, Id say hes done pretty much what I could expect in 10 weeks. Im pretty happy.:D

Anyway, as to the article in the OP...its a lot of whining. Unfounded, pathetic, biased, whining detatched from the reality of the situation. Which is pretty much what Ive come to expect from The Economist. Id be curious to see who these strong supporters of his who have started to question him are. I personally think the column is talking out its ass.

I agree. Hes done about what I expected him to get done in ten weeks. Began closing Gitmo, ended governmental endoresment of torture, began health care and education reform...in general laid the groundwork to fix all the shit Bush fucked up.

Yep, Id say hes done pretty much what I could expect in 10 weeks. Im pretty happy.:D

Anyway, as to the article in the OP...its a lot of whining. Unfounded, pathetic, biased, whining detatched from the reality of the situation. Which is pretty much what Ive come to expect from The Economist. Id be curious to see who these strong supporters of his who have started to question him are. I personally think the column is talking out its ass.

He's done more good for our foreign relations, in ten weeks, as a pure incedental, than the previous regime managed in 8 years. He's worked miracles.

He's done more good for our foreign relations, in ten weeks, as a pure incedental, than the previous regime managed in 8 years. He's worked miracles.

This.


Like I said, Im pretty happy. I dont like everything hes done, but taken as a whole, the good out weighs the bad. Im pretty happy.

Ban all government... except the police to keep my stuff safe.

And the Bailouts to keep it from phailing, lol

This.


Like I said, Im pretty happy. I dont like everything hes done, but taken as a whole, the good out weighs the bad. Im pretty happy.

True this.

He's got a long way to go to deliver on everything he offered... and, as a realist, I never expected EVERYTHING he offered, because I never envisioned the political process allowing anyone that much freedom... but he's making the right moves.

He was obviously going to disappoint me on what I wanted - but then, he was never that likely to nationalise healthcare, remove the electoral college, or usher in proportional representation.

But then, I never judged him on what I wanted.

He's done more good for our foreign relations, in ten weeks, as a pure incedental, than the previous regime managed in 8 years. He's worked miracles.
True, true. Let's hear The Economist bitch and whine about how disappointing that is in their next issue.

Lacking the courage to do what he said he would.

Ah. I thought he meant "weaker" as in "didn't perform as well as I had hoped."

So far, he's been just as bad as I feared he would be, if that answers the question.

But then, I never judged him on what I wanted.
What?! You mean you don't think the whole government is there to serve you and your personal interests and that "president" is just an Algonkin word for "GnI's secretary"? What are you, some kind of commie?

I'm neither left nor right, and I knew Obama could never possibly live up to the hopes of seemingly half the world, but I didn't expect him to be this bad.

*looks at your sig*

You're the closest thing to an extremist centrist there can possibly be. :p

What?! You mean you don't think the whole government is there to serve you and your personal interests and that "president" is just an Algonkin word for "GnI's secretary"? What are you, some kind of commie?

Some kind, yeah... what were we talking about? :)

I'm not sure why it stirs such controversy to try to be objective.

Obviously this article wasn't objective. It didn't need to be, it didn't set itself up to be - I'm not quite sure why some people want to take me to task for pointing that out.

Judged objectively, Obama isn't failing in any way, really - especially considering the legacy he inherited.

His BIGGEST 'failings' are failing to undo some of that legacy, to be honest,

Some kind, yeah... what were we talking about? :)

I'm not sure why it stirs such controversy to try to be objective.

Obviously this article wasn't objective. It didn't need to be, it didn't set itself up to be - I'm not quite sure why some people want to take me to task for pointing that out.
That is answered by the point I was trying to make -- that all this "he's failing" crap, when you talk it out, is really just individuals bitching that he is not 100% dedicated to whatever their pet issue is and nothing else. You know, as if he works for them personally, as if nothing else matters as much or (*gasp!*) more than what they are interested in, as if the government has no other responsibility than to fetch and carry for them, personally.

And they always seem so annoyed when people point out that they really aren't the point of the government's existence, and that even though it is government of, by and for the People, that doesn't mean they literally work for whichever of the People is bitching at them at the moment.

Judged objectively, Obama isn't failing in any way, really - especially considering the legacy he inherited.

His BIGGEST 'failings' are failing to undo some of that legacy, to be honest,
Oh, not you too. He is not failing to undo some of that legacy, dammit. Look at your calendar again! He has not done it YET. Give him some reasonable time before deciding he is not doing something.

Oh, not you too. He is not failing to undo some of that legacy, dammit. Look at your calendar again! He has not done it YET. Give him some reasonable time before deciding he is not doing something.

LOL.

I appreciate that some things take time. That's why I was saying his 'failings', emphasised like that.

See, I can appreciate the importance of fixing the economy, getting all the political appointments sorted, etc - but the way I see it - objectively - if a President walks into an administration that is not true to the Constitution... THAT is the thing the President (every President) is sworn to safeguard as priority.

LOL.

I appreciate that some things take time. That's why I was saying his 'failings', emphasised like that.

See, I can appreciate the importance of fixing the economy, getting all the political appointments sorted, etc - but the way I see it - objectively - if a President walks into an administration that is not true to the Constitution... THAT is the thing the President (every President) is sworn to safeguard as priority.
Okay, granted, it is EXTREMELY important. However, I see him more as getting the executive branch back on the right path now and going forward and leaving the accounting of the past for later, when the current crises have been dealt with. Now, personally, I don't like that, but considering the pressures and demands of the moment, I accept that it is the best course. As for getting the executive branch back on the right, Constitutional path, I am satisfied that he is doing alright so far. I do want to see more, but I am willing to give him more time to get everything sorted out.

As a non-American liberal who was ambivalent about Obama during the election, I will say this: I am unimpressed thus far. I realise that it is still *very* early days, but so far he is not treating it as a full-time job. I believe that he's already had a vacation - during the first 100 days, no less - and I will enumerate the list of my grievances against the Obama Administration below.

1. He has broken at least two important promises, both having to do with government accountability and honesty.

a) Promise #1: No revolving-door policy for lobbyists. Link here (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/) - the Obama administration nominated a defence contractor lobbyist for a position in the procurement arm of the Dept. of Defense. Ultimately, even Claire McCaskill (a normally dependable Obama ally) voted against accepting Lynn on the basis that his nomination constituted a continuation of hte revolving-door reality.

b) Promise #2: "Daylighting" bills for public comment for 5 days prior to signing them - Obama has signed now multiple bills without allowing the five days promised for public comment. In one case, the bill never appeared on the WH website, and in another, it was placed there only hours before Obama signed it. Link here (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/).

People may nitpick, saying that these promises are trivial. They are not - a central theme of Obama's campaign was a "restoration" of governmental standards, which he is not carrying out. He made plenty of political hay condemning McCain's employment of lobbyists on his campaign, but now employes them himself. He castigated Bush (rightly) for rushing bills through the Republican congress 2004-6, but now does the same with his Democrat congress. In short, he used the promise of "new politics" to galvanise enthusiasm for his campaign, but failed to deliver once in office.

2. Obama has failed, not only to staff key departments like Treasury, but to even nominate appointees for at least half of the positions in Treasury. No Administration has been so slow in comparable situations, such as the incoming Clinton Administration in 1993. They, too, inherited a recession, but got a team in fast. Even Bush's administration filled its posts more quickly than this. Bear in mind, Obama has known since Nov. 4 that he would be the President, and announced various Cabinet picks as early as mid-November. He hasn't had 10 weeks - he's had five months to get his backside in gear on this.

3. Obama's preferential treatment of Wall Street. Yes, I realise that by conventional ecomic wisdom, corporations like AIG and its fellows are too big to fail, for the sake of the American person on the street. I disagree with this position - I believe that the government could take action that would protect the savers and businesses that can't afford for those corps to go under, whilst still letting them do so. The right to succeed, after all, carries with it the right to fail - provided that you're not failing due to someone else's stupidity.

However, even accepting it as true for the sake of this debate, why leave the same CEOs who started this mess in place? Obama has shown his willingness to collect heads where he deems it necessary (refer to Rick Wagoner and GM for a comparison) - why not get the people who made this mess out of their offices, rather than giving them bonuses? Why one rule for Wall Street executives and another for everyone else?

4. The "stimulus" bills. I am sure, given the decrepit state of US infrastructure, that any American here can think of places that hundreds of billions of dollars can be spent of actually repairing and reinvesting into infrastrucure, which will kick-start the economy and put people back to work. Or it could be spent improving the education system, which would pay off for generations to come. Or.....you get the point.

As opposed, for instance, to giving those hundreds of billions of dollars to finance companies that do nothing with them, except use them to make their balance sheets look better. Money isn't moving again, banks aren't making loans again - why? Because any effective approach from this direction would have to involve sums that not even a US government is willing to pay (Estimates that I have heard and read range from $12trn to $14trn), and because no-one wants to borrow. There is a lack of both supply and demand for investment funds at the present, and the stimulus primarily concerns itself with addressing only half the problem - the half that benefits politicians' big donors.

5. Budgetary dishonesty. This criticism has two parts to it:

a) Obama and earmarks. In fairness, unlike his opponent John McCain, Obama did not promise to eliminate earmarks. However, he did promise to go "line by line" through legislation and use the power of his office to reduce earmarks. And, in the words (http://http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/512/go-line-line-over-earmarks-make-sure-money-being-s/) of PolitiFact (a nonpartisan fact-checking organisation), with the stimulus bill,

Obama took a strong and vocal stand against them and showed what he could do with the power of the bully pulpit. The bill was not earmark-free as he claimed, but it was close.

However, PolitiFact then noted that Obama failed to do anything significant about the Omnibus bill, which contained upwards of 9,000 earmarks (depending on how you count earmarks), totalling well over $4 billion. He didn't rail against it. He didn't threaten a veto. He didn't even contact Senators and ask them to remove the earmarks. He just signed the bill quietly.

b) Fuzzy math. Here (http://http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/barack-obama/obama-promises-cut-deficit-half-four-years/) and here (http://http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/barack-obama/obamas-claim-about-government-spending-chooses-mos/), PolitiFact points out Obama's use of dishonest mathematics and technicalities. Particularly egregious is his use of the most optimistic numbers in the short term, and entirely ignoring the long-term costs of various proposed programs.

This is not the way good government is run, and it is not the way Candidate Obama promised to run government.

None of these is a trivial criticism, or one that comes from an ideological extreme. It is simple - Obama has failed to live up to his hype.

As a non-American liberal who was ambivalent about Obama during the election, I will say this: I am unimpressed thus far. I realise that it is still *very* early days, but so far he is not treating it as a full-time job. I believe that he's already had a vacation - during the first 100 days, no less - and I will enumerate the list of my grievances against the Obama Administration below.

1. He has broken at least two important promises, both having to do with government accountability and honesty.

a) Promise #1: No revolving-door policy for lobbyists. Link here (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/) - the Obama administration nominated a defence contractor lobbyist for a position in the procurement arm of the Dept. of Defense. Ultimately, even Claire McCaskill (a normally dependable Obama ally) voted against accepting Lynn on the basis that his nomination constituted a continuation of hte revolving-door reality.
I am also not happy with the number of people with private sector connections in his administration. I am also displeased with the number of former Clinton people in Obama's admin. However, I do not yet see anything that resembles a "revolving door policy for lobbyists." Also, a political analyst on CNN once pointed out, back when Daschle withdrew from nomination, that it is virtually impossible to find people with any qualifications at all for these high level positions who have NO private sector connections and/or (and more often "and" than "or") connections to prior, ethically-challenged administrations. Choosing people who will fulfill ethical standards becomes a matter of judging the individual IN SPITE of their resume to an extent, rather than judging them by it.

This is why I said earlier that one of Obama's real mistakes was to make a public declaration of a very strict standard. He should have kept that behind closed doors, as it were, because all it did was (a) give ammunition to his opponents who seek to obstruct him, and (b) confuse the general public who are not in a position to see all of what goes in the vetting and approval processes.

So, based on the difficulty of meeting the extreme standard he set for himself at the outset and on the fact that we are not privy to everything that is going on in this process, I think your criticism that he has instituted a revolving door for lobbyists is not realistic. We need to see his administration in action for a longer period of time before we can tell if there is a revolving door or if private special interests are dictating policy.

b) Promise #2: "Daylighting" bills for public comment for 5 days prior to signing them - Obama has signed now multiple bills without allowing the five days promised for public comment. In one case, the bill never appeared on the WH website, and in another, it was placed there only hours before Obama signed it. Link here (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/).
I am not convinced that this is a reasonable criticism. Do you expect him to "daylight" every single bill, no matter how technical or trivial? Do you expect crises or emergency situations to sit and wait while the public passes judgment on bills? Do you expect him to govern by public referendum and never do anything until Mr. and Ms. J.Q. Citizen give the OK? There is such a thing as adjusting for real circumstances, you know.

People may nitpick, saying that these promises are trivial. They are not - a central theme of Obama's campaign was a "restoration" of governmental standards, which he is not carrying out. He made plenty of political hay condemning McCain's employment of lobbyists on his campaign, but now employes them himself. He castigated Bush (rightly) for rushing bills through the Republican congress 2004-6, but now does the same with his Democrat congress. In short, he used the promise of "new politics" to galvanise enthusiasm for his campaign, but failed to deliver once in office.
Once in office...how long again? "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?..."

2. Obama has failed, not only to staff key departments like Treasury, but to even nominate appointees for at least half of the positions in Treasury. No Administration has been so slow in comparable situations, such as the incoming Clinton Administration in 1993. They, too, inherited a recession, but got a team in fast. Even Bush's administration filled its posts more quickly than this. Bear in mind, Obama has known since Nov. 4 that he would be the President, and announced various Cabinet picks as early as mid-November. He hasn't had 10 weeks - he's had five months to get his backside in gear on this.
I dispute your facts here. I know that Clinton had to put up three nominees for head of Treasury before he got one approved by Congress. Several other positions under Clinton took up to 6 months to fill, as well. Also, there are nominees for Obama admin positions awaiting Congressional review appointments as we post. He has not failed to nominate people. Just because not everything makes it into the news, that doesn't mean it's not happening.

As for Bush -- that comparison is insulting. Bush filled those seats with friends and campaign donors, few of whom had even the most basic qualifications for the jobs. Would you rather have another gaggle of "Heck of a Job" Brownies just so you get all the chairs filled fast?

3. Obama's preferential treatment of Wall Street. Yes, I realise that by conventional ecomic wisdom, corporations like AIG and its fellows are too big to fail, for the sake of the American person on the street. I disagree with this position - I believe that the government could take action that would protect the savers and businesses that can't afford for those corps to go under, whilst still letting them do so. The right to succeed, after all, carries with it the right to fail - provided that you're not failing due to someone else's stupidity.

However, even accepting it as true for the sake of this debate, why leave the same CEOs who started this mess in place? Obama has shown his willingness to collect heads where he deems it necessary (refer to Rick Wagoner and GM for a comparison) - why not get the people who made this mess out of their offices, rather than giving them bonuses? Why one rule for Wall Street executives and another for everyone else?
I am also unhappy with the handling of the failing banks and financial institutions. Of all of Obama's questionable appointments, I am the most displeased with his economic team, based on their prior connections and performance to date -- what I can see of it. However, I am not convinced that we are seeing enough of the whole situation to make judgments about what options are realistically available to them. Also, although you and I may disagree with the approach they are taking, and although we may not trust the people he has picked to build the policy, those people are nonetheless economic professionals with impressive resumes. This may very well come down to a philosophical difference, and so far, there is not enough data about results to make judgments as to which faction's course of action is going to work or fail.

Further, and this is just my personal view, I do not believe that any government policy can do more than soften the blows of the economic crisis on the citizens at this point. I believe the crisis is too big and extreme to control, that it must and will run its natural course no matter what anyone does about it. Obama's policy may not be the one I would have chosen, but I am willing to let him do his best with it. Meanwhile, I'm not going to wait for the results, but am taking care of my own interests as best I can.

Someday the economy will turn around, that is inevitable. And when it does, the benefits that come with it will be the economy running its natural course, too, and not necessarily attributable to any government policy.

4. The "stimulus" bills. I am sure, given the decrepit state of US infrastructure, that any American here can think of places that hundreds of billions of dollars can be spent of actually repairing and reinvesting into infrastrucure, which will kick-start the economy and put people back to work. Or it could be spent improving the education system, which would pay off for generations to come. Or.....you get the point.

As opposed, for instance, to giving those hundreds of billions of dollars to finance companies that do nothing with them, except use them to make their balance sheets look better. Money isn't moving again, banks aren't making loans again - why? Because any effective approach from this direction would have to involve sums that not even a US government is willing to pay (Estimates that I have heard and read range from $12trn to $14trn), and because no-one wants to borrow. There is a lack of both supply and demand for investment funds at the present, and the stimulus primarily concerns itself with addressing only half the problem - the half that benefits politicians' big donors.
You are blaming Obama for the obstruction of the Republicans here. There are multiple stimulus packages, and the jobs stimulus packages, which include immediate and ongoing infrastructure work as well as longer term new tech development, are the ones that have been hung up by the Republicans.

At the same time, they wail and fume about money going to CEOs, while they hold open the door to let that money go.

5. Budgetary dishonesty. This criticism has two parts to it:

a) Obama and earmarks. In fairness, unlike his opponent John McCain, Obama did not promise to eliminate earmarks. However, he did promise to go "line by line" through legislation and use the power of his office to reduce earmarks. And, in the words (http://http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/512/go-line-line-over-earmarks-make-sure-money-being-s/) of PolitiFact (a nonpartisan fact-checking organisation), with the stimulus bill,



However, PolitiFact then noted that Obama failed to do anything significant about the Omnibus bill, which contained upwards of 9,000 earmarks (depending on how you count earmarks), totalling well over $4 billion. He didn't rail against it. He didn't threaten a veto. He didn't even contact Senators and ask them to remove the earmarks. He just signed the bill quietly.
You fail to acknowledge that Obama specifically addressed that criticism when called on it by the press. He stated very clearly that the budget bill in question had been written before he took office, and that he was extremely displeased with the amount and nature of earmarks in it, and that he had put Congress on notice that he would veto future bills that were structured in such a way. However, that particular budget bill could not be vetoed because it was the bill that authorized expenses for basic government functions and the parts of it that were not pork were too vitally needed for him to block it at that time.

So again, you are blaming Obama for Congress's misbehavior and making a demand on Obama that is unrealistic considering the reality of the time.

b) Fuzzy math. Here (http://http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/barack-obama/obama-promises-cut-deficit-half-four-years/) and here (http://http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/barack-obama/obamas-claim-about-government-spending-chooses-mos/), PolitiFact points out Obama's use of dishonest mathematics and technicalities. Particularly egregious is his use of the most optimistic numbers in the short term, and entirely ignoring the long-term costs of various proposed programs.

This is not the way good government is run, and it is not the way Candidate Obama promised to run government.
I dispute this. I believe Obama's present numbers have been anything but optimistic, and I believe that criticism that projections are too optimistic are based more on ideology or on economic theories different from the theories he has chosen to work with. That makes this just a difference of opinion, not a matter of fact.

None of these is a trivial criticism, or one that comes from an ideological extreme. It is simple - Obama has failed to live up to his hype.
"Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?...Not YET??? WAAH! No fair! I want my money back!"

While I agree that some of his decisions deserve criticism, I see no point in passing judgement over his presidency at this point in time.

When it comes to the opinion piece, I think there's some hits and some misses.

*snip*

I find it particularly telling that the source of your criticisms, PoliFact.com (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/) is tracking 514 alleged campaign "promises" by President Obama, yet finds (on rather trivial grounds) he has "broken" only three of those promises.

With not even 100 days completed, President Obama (according to your source) has kept 21 promises and is working on 64 more. That seems to me to be a damn fine record.

There also is some hypocrisy in criticizing President Obama for failing to fill positions in the Treasury Department quickly while also insisting that President Obama maintain the most rigorous of standards against even an appearance of impropriety. It isn't easy to find qualified candidates willing to take on such tough jobs for less pay and to go through the ringer to get the job.

Excellent analysis, Muravyets! : D

I did not vote for Obama, but I do think he should be given a reasonable chance to get his feet under himself and to show what he can do.

I find it particularly telling that the source of your criticisms, PoliFact.com (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/) is tracking 514 alleged campaign "promises" by President Obama, yet finds (on rather trivial grounds) he has "broken" only three of those promises.

With not even 100 days completed, President Obama (according to your source) has kept 21 promises and is working on 64 more. That seems to me to be a damn fine record.

There also is some hypocrisy in criticizing President Obama for failing to fill positions in the Treasury Department quickly while also insisting that President Obama maintain the most rigorous of standards against even an appearance of impropriety. It isn't easy to find qualified candidates willing to take on such tough jobs for less pay and to go through the ringer to get the job.

This. I see a lot of people whining because theyre being unrealistic.

I find it particularly telling that the source of your criticisms, PoliFact.com (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/) is tracking 514 alleged campaign "promises" by President Obama, yet finds (on rather trivial grounds) he has "broken" only three of those promises.

With not even 100 days completed, President Obama (according to your source) has kept 21 promises and is working on 64 more. That seems to me to be a damn fine record.

There also is some hypocrisy in criticizing President Obama for failing to fill positions in the Treasury Department quickly while also insisting that President Obama maintain the most rigorous of standards against even an appearance of impropriety. It isn't easy to find qualified candidates willing to take on such tough jobs for less pay and to go through the ringer to get the job.
Excellent points. 3 out of a claimed 514. Makes New Chalcedon seem rather extra unreasonable.

Excellent analysis, Muravyets! : D

I did not vote for Obama, but I do think he should be given a reasonable chance to get his feet under himself and to show what he can do.
Thanks.

@Muravyets:

You persistantly misinterpret what I have said.

Re: Lobbyists in the Administration: Of course, I realise that finding qualified people with no private-sector experience is near-impossible. Which is why neither myself nor Politifact set that bar. The bar that they set, and I agree with, is Obama's own promise, which has as its main points that:

a) No former lobbyist will serve for a period of two years within the filed in which they were lobbying; and

b) Tough standards of accountability would be adhered to in deciding such.

As PolitiFact notes, the Administration has violated both of these points. They have, in the worst possible way, used the revolving door, and they have done so with a lack of transparency and honesty. Which is why PolitiFact rated that promise Broken, and I see nothing in your post to persuade me that they are in error.

Further, you raise the point of an unrealistic promise. If he made the promise, knowing all along that he'd have to break it, we call that lying over here in Australia. If he made the promise thinking that he could uphold it, then he clearly knew very little about how the Executive branch of the US Government works.

However, he made the promise. He made it, and he made the theme of governmental transparency and accountability a central theme of his campaign. And has failed to deliver.

Re: The Five-day "Sunlight" period:

Obama's promise left him leeway for emergency bills. However, the two that he has signed without daylighting (so far) are hardly emergency bills, as PolitFact notes. Had they been emergency in nature, I doubt that they would have rated the promise Broken. But the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (admirable though it may be) was hardly emergency - it was, in fact, retroactive to May 2007. So why could it not wait from Jan 29 to Feb 2 (five days after it got to his desk) to be signed? The SCHIP Expansion Bill was another such - it didn't kick in until April.

Sure - expecting everyone to understand the technicalities of the bills is unreasonable. But that's not the point. The point is that he promised that all non-emergency bills would be "sunlit" in order to prevent the Bush Administration's bad habit of working in the dark. He broke that promise, and for no compelling reason that I can see.

Re: The economy - What economic team? It's Geithner, and then zip.Not one of the positions at Treasury below the Secretary's has been filled, to my knowledge. Obama has nominated half a dozen people, but most have withdrawn their nominations since.

Re: The "stimulus" bill - Oh, really? It got the (three) Republican votes it needed to pass the Senate unaltered. The rest of them bitched and moaned about it (and I wish to God that they'd put up some constructive criticism, instead - which they didn't), but the form that passed the Senate was essentially what the Democrats asked for, trimmed by a few billion here and there. And none of the trimming was in actual public works. The Stimulus is the Democrats' baby - they have to take responsibility for it.

Point me, please, to even one stimulus bill that has been held up by the Republicans right through to now. And as far as money to CEOs goes, Dodd is a Democrat. As is Obama. And (depending on who you ask) one of those two was responsible for the "Dodd Amendment". Dodd claims that Obama strongarmed him into it. Obama claims it was Dodd's idea. Geithner agrees with Dodd. I don't care. They're both Democrats, so their actions reflect upon the Democrat Party much like Bush's and Foley's actions reflected upon the Republican Party. The standard that applies one way applies the other, too.

Re: Budgetary dishonesty:

Obama, by at least two (http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_prime_time_pitch.html) sources (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20203.html) other than PolitiFact, is being significantly more optimistic than either the market forecasters or the CBO regarding the Budget, without releasing his reasoning. This suggests to me that he might not have much to back his forecasts up. (Seriously - 2.6% average GDP growth starting this year? Who's he kidding? This recession's far from over.) And his claims about "discretionary spending", whilst not technically false, are definitely misleading, as are his claims about halving the deficit.

As far as your (very personal) attack on me regarding "it's too early" goes, I noted, at the start of my post:

I realise that it is still *very* early days

I will reiterate this, since you seem to have a hard time getting it to compute.

I know that it is still early. I am willing to give him a chance. I am simply unhappy at the direction things are going. And your attempt to accuse me of not realising this amounts to intellectual dishonesty, since it was there in black and white when I first posted my thoughts on this topic. Good day.

@TheCat-Tribe:

I dispute your assertion that PolitiFact rated these promises as broken on flimsy grounds. In each case, Obama promised a specific thing, and then acted contrary to his promise.

However, you are correct in one thing: His batting average so far is good. It's just that both of the broken promises I cited were at the core of one of his campaign's chief themes, being a change in the way government is run (as discussed above with Muravyets). And hence, more important than simple arithmetic may indicate. However, I understand why some people would have different points of view - and there is good reason to do so.

Regarding the nomination process, I am simply pointing out that Obama is, by turns, having difficulty filling the spots and breaking his own standards in his attempts to do so. I thought from the start that he was being at least a tad optimistic in some of his promises, given that from May 2008 it was clear that the economy was going to be a problem child for the next President. But he made it. No-one else imposed that standard on him; he voluntarily chose to assume it.

As far as "my source" goes, I tend to prefer PolitiFact because it is well-organised by topic and individual. FactCheck doesn't organise by topic (which can make research more time-consuming than a social forum is really worth, given my workload at university), and most other sources that I've found are partisan in one way or the other. If you have access to a reasonably non-partisan source other than FactCheck or PolitiFact, by all means, let me know. I would be highly interested in expanding my base of sources.

I am also not happy with the number of people with private sector connections in his administration. I am also displeased with the number of former Clinton people in Obama's admin.

See, this? Not a problem for me.

Walk into a job, hire a staff. Easy.

Unless that staff needs prior experience... that makes it harder, and limits your choices.

Unless that staff might need to be judged by a conflicting, partisan, body... that makes it MUCH harder, and limits your choices.

Add to that problems of partisan appointees, and the risks and responsibilities...


I'm content that Obama will change his line-up, if he can... but that he needed to have warm bodies working ASAP, which means I'm really not worried about his appointee profile, right now.

mr obama must be doing SOMETHING right when it comes to lobbyists, they are threatening to sue over his restrictions.

"Lobbyists and two public interest groups asked the White House Tuesday to rescind its ban on lobbyists discussing stimulus package projects with Obama administration officials, saying it violated free speech and would still allow access for others seeking money from the measure."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gSMcF3k0JizQCxPJGNA85l-PnboAD9797LF80

Maybe they should just Deport him back to Kenya, :p

@Muravyets:

You persistantly misinterpret what I have said.
I persistently misinterpret you? How many times have I ever argued with you about anything? Or are you declaring me a consistent misinterpreter of you on the basis of just one post, similar to how you criticize Obama on the basis of just 3 campaign promises not yet fulfilled after such a short period of time -- out of 514 supposed promises being tracked?

Re: Lobbyists in the Administration: Of course, I realise that finding qualified people with no private-sector experience is near-impossible. Which is why neither myself nor Politifact set that bar. The bar that they set, and I agree with, is Obama's own promise, which has as its main points that:

a) No former lobbyist will serve for a period of two years within the filed in which they were lobbying; and

b) Tough standards of accountability would be adhered to in deciding such.

As PolitiFact notes, the Administration has violated both of these points. They have, in the worst possible way, used the revolving door, and they have done so with a lack of transparency and honesty. Which is why PolitiFact rated that promise Broken, and I see nothing in your post to persuade me that they are in error.
You are repeating yourself. None of this adds anything to your earlier remarks.

By the way, I am in the US. I am aware of what has happened in the Obama presidency so far.

Further, you raise the point of an unrealistic promise. If he made the promise, knowing all along that he'd have to break it, we call that lying over here in Australia. If he made the promise thinking that he could uphold it, then he clearly knew very little about how the Executive branch of the US Government works.

However, he made the promise. He made it, and he made the theme of governmental transparency and accountability a central theme of his campaign. And has failed to deliver.
And now you can read his mind as well as know everything that is happening in Washington but doesn't make it into the papers and tv news, and as well as being able to predict the future to know that he never will fulfill this promise, and on that basis you may as well declare that he has already broken it, and call him a liar to boot. Impressive. BS but still impressive.

Re: The Five-day "Sunlight" period:

Obama's promise left him leeway for emergency bills. However, the two that he has signed without daylighting (so far) are hardly emergency bills, as PolitFact notes. Had they been emergency in nature, I doubt that they would have rated the promise Broken. But the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (admirable though it may be) was hardly emergency - it was, in fact, retroactive to May 2007. So why could it not wait from Jan 29 to Feb 2 (five days after it got to his desk) to be signed? The SCHIP Expansion Bill was another such - it didn't kick in until April.

Sure - expecting everyone to understand the technicalities of the bills is unreasonable. But that's not the point. The point is that he promised that all non-emergency bills would be "sunlit" in order to prevent the Bush Administration's bad habit of working in the dark. He broke that promise, and for no compelling reason that I can see.
Apparently, the Australian media and PolitFact failed to inform you that the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was quite old and had been banging around Congress for years and had been fully debated, etc, before Obama came into office. Few Americans (who are the citizens who count on this) had not had a chance to educate themselves about it, considering that it had been in the works for more than a decade. So that's one point of BS.

Next, characterizing the Fair Pay Act as a significant piece of legislation that required daylighting for public comment before going forward is ridiculous. The Fair Pay Act is actually an adjustment to existing labor regulations. Its passage is politically significant only because it was being blocked by rightwing opponents for many years, so for those who care about it, that was worth celebrating. But other than that, it has only a minor effect on existing regulations. So that's another point of BS, and my assertion that Obama should not be required to daylight every technical adjustment to the law stands.

As for the SCHIP Expansion, either PolitFact or you apparently failed in this case to note that this is the famous "Health Care for Poor Children" bill that has been a political football in the US for years, and which had its profile raised again in the public eye during the last general election. The American public had already expressed its opinion about this bill -- primarily in favor of it -- long ago. So are you going to blame Obama now for not requiring the American people to tell him to do something over and over and over again before he does it?

Re: The economy - What economic team? It's Geithner, and then zip.
There are also Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, and Christina Romer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/24/obama-white-house-economy

The fact that you forgot about them indicates that you may not be as up on US politics and the Obama administration as you seem to think.

Not one of the positions at Treasury below the Secretary's has been filled, to my knowledge. Obama has nominated half a dozen people, but most have withdrawn their nominations since.
Oh, so he has not failed to nominate people, then, eh?

Re: The "stimulus" bill - Oh, really? It got the (three) Republican votes it needed to pass the Senate unaltered. The rest of them bitched and moaned about it (and I wish to God that they'd put up some constructive criticism, instead - which they didn't), but the form that passed the Senate was essentially what the Democrats asked for, trimmed by a few billion here and there. And none of the trimming was in actual public works. The Stimulus is the Democrats' baby - they have to take responsibility for it.

Point me, please, to even one stimulus bill that has been held up by the Republicans right through to now.
Are you serious? Do you want me to google the entire US news archives of all the major media for the past 3.5 months? Are you unaware of the constant haranguing of Republicans like Boehner, King, McConnell against all stimulus measures that protect jobs (on the grounds that we need to create jobs), that create new jobs (on the grounds that they won't pop up within the week), that support labor (on the grounds that unions are ruining the economy), that build roads (on the grounds that we should worry about mortgages instead and the states don't want the money), etc, etc, etc? Are you unaware of the constant threats by the Republican leadership to fillibuster every stimulus measure that contains such features if the Dems don't rewrite them? Did you miss the public anger at the way the Dems caved to the Republican leadership in writing the bills to appease them?

Geez-gods, are you sure you are even tracking US politics at all? Maybe you've got your presidents and countries mixed up.

And as far as money to CEOs goes, Dodd is a Democrat. As is Obama. And (depending on who you ask) one of those two was responsible for the "Dodd Amendment". Dodd claims that Obama strongarmed him into it. Obama claims it was Dodd's idea. Geithner agrees with Dodd. I don't care. They're both Democrats, so their actions reflect upon the Democrat Party much like Bush's and Foley's actions reflected upon the Republican Party. The standard that applies one way applies the other, too.
So what? Are you suggesting that the Republicans are not and have not also been in the pocket of corporate interests for decades, just as much as the Democrats? Are you choosing to completely ignore the depth and breadth of corruption that I wrote about earlier, which makes it so difficult to move these measures through? As it is, Obama has already made surprising headway in reducing CEO compensation packages just by application of threats and pressure, all in defiance of bipartisan Congressional resistance.

I'm sorry, but this complaint of yours is pure bullshit.

Re: Budgetary dishonesty:

Obama, by at least two (http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_prime_time_pitch.html) sources (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20203.html) other than PolitiFact, is being significantly more optimistic than either the market forecasters or the CBO regarding the Budget, without releasing his reasoning. This suggests to me that he might not have much to back his forecasts up. (Seriously - 2.6% average GDP growth starting this year? Who's he kidding? This recession's far from over.) And his claims about "discretionary spending", whilst not technically false, are definitely misleading, as are his claims about halving the deficit.
And this is another combination of ignorance with tea-leaf reading. Like everyone else in the world you have no access yet to full data that tells us how Obama's proposed budget was calculated to account for the discrepancy with the later calculations of the CBO. Yet, despite that lack of information, you choose to jump to accusing him of lying, rather than wait and see what adjustments he makes, what else the CBO might say, or what the GAO (Government Accountability Office) will say about it in their regular audits.

As far as your (very personal) attack on me regarding "it's too early" goes, I noted, at the start of my post:



I will reiterate this, since you seem to have a hard time getting it to compute.

I know that it is still early. I am willing to give him a chance. I am simply unhappy at the direction things are going. And your attempt to accuse me of not realising this amounts to intellectual dishonesty, since it was there in black and white when I first posted my thoughts on this topic.
You start and finish by acknowledging that it is far too early to call Obama a failure, a liar, or corrupt, yet you post massive arguments accusing him repeatedly of exactly those things.

But I'm the one who is being intellectually dishonest. Yeah, right.

Good day.
You have a nice day, too.

mr obama must be doing SOMETHING right when it comes to lobbyists, they are threatening to sue over his restrictions.

"Lobbyists and two public interest groups asked the White House Tuesday to rescind its ban on lobbyists discussing stimulus package projects with Obama administration officials, saying it violated free speech and would still allow access for others seeking money from the measure."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gSMcF3k0JizQCxPJGNA85l-PnboAD9797LF80
Perhaps they are offended by him breaking his promise to keep them out of his cabinet. :rolleyes:

His approval rating is a 62%. Thats relatively unchanged since when he was sworn in, and is still within the margin of error from his approval rating at inaugeration day.


I repeat, I call bullshit on the Economist's claim that "many of his supporters" are disappointed with him.

His approval rating is a 62%. Thats relatively unchanged since when he was sworn in, and is still within the margin of error from his approval rating at inaugeration day.


I repeat, I call bullshit on the Economist's claim that "many of his supporters" are disappointed with him.
The mythical Disappointed Supporters, crying and cutting themselves because they supported Obama and three months later, they still had no pony. I suppose this is the new meme we're going to have to put up with.

The mythical Disappointed Supporters, crying and cutting themselves because they supported Obama and three months later, they still had no pony. I suppose this is the new meme we're going to have to put up with.

Really, if the only "dissapointed supporter" is the fucking Economist, Im ok with that.


In fact, if he's pissing of that capitalist rag, he must be doing something right.

It's possible a small number of supporters are disillusioned and that a lot of formerly anti-Obama or ambivalent people are now supporters, which is why his approval rating has been relatively consistent. Still, it's curious how they use a vague adjective ("many") rather than providing an estimate.

The mythical Disappointed Supporters, crying and cutting themselves because they supported Obama and three months later, they still had no pony. I suppose this is the new meme we're going to have to put up with.

There will be a fall-away, almost certainly... just because of the nature of that election.

But, to refer to people who voted Democrat to punish a Republican party they could no longer believe in... as 'disappointed supporters'... it's pretty intellectually dishonest, really.

Really, if the only "dissapointed supporter" is the fucking Economist, Im ok with that.


In fact, if he's pissing of that capitalist rag, he must be doing something right.

Random fact: Berlusconi, the center-right Italian President of the Council of Ministers, refers to it as "the Ecommunist." :p

The mythical Disappointed Supporters, crying and cutting themselves because they supported Obama and three months later, they still had no pony. I suppose this is the new meme we're going to have to put up with.

I believe there is a segment of the population who, no matter which of the two parties/political ideologies/candidates/colors they support, tend to emphasize the election so much that they feel disappointed and let-down once they realize, after a few months, that simply "winning" would not get them the pony they secretly wanted.

Nothing new about it really.

There will be a fall-away, almost certainly... just because of the nature of that election.

But, to refer to people who voted Democrat to punish a Republican party they could no longer believe in... as 'disappointed supporters'... it's pretty intellectually dishonest, really.
I actually expected a much greater and swifter fall-away than we have seen. I expected his approval ratings to plummet drastically once the novelty of him not being Bush wore off and people focused on the reality of the economy. I thought he'd be well below 50% after his first month. I am really surprised at how relatively steady his approval numbers have been.

His approval rating is a 62%. Thats relatively unchanged since when he was sworn in, and is still within the margin of error from his approval rating at inaugeration day.


I repeat, I call bullshit on the Economist's claim that "many of his supporters" are disappointed with him.

By 'many' I mean me and Dave here, and by supporters I mean we where indifferent between the choices.

I actually expected a much greater and swifter fall-away than we have seen. I expected his approval ratings to plummet drastically once the novelty of him not being Bush wore off and people focused on the reality of the economy. I thought he'd be well below 50% after his first month. I am really surprised at how relatively steady his approval numbers have been.

Well, he's been doing a surprisingly good job. Most Americans think the country is going in the right direction (compared to what.. 20% towards the end of the Bush regime?), and trust Obama to do good work.

I'm not saying he's making friends wherever he looks, but he's reaching across partisan lines with his AUDIENCE, even if he IS being blocked by politicians.

Well, he's been doing a surprisingly good job. Most Americans think the country is going in the right direction (compared to what.. 20% towards the end of the Bush regime?), and trust Obama to do good work.

I'm not saying he's making friends wherever he looks, but he's reaching across partisan lines with his AUDIENCE, even if he IS being blocked by politicians.

and that blockage is, as a general rule, merely alienating them from the Populace, so Id consider it a major success...

Perhaps thats why more right-wingers keep asking if people think he's failing, and/or outright stating it....

Fear of losing the Audience...

By 'many' I mean me and Dave here, and by supporters I mean we where indifferent between the choices.

I suspect this is more or less what is going on.

I clicked the wrong one on the poll. I meant to put "Non-American: YES and I tend to be RIGHT wing "