The American Spectator : Our One-Term President

Text Size

Our One-Term President

By Tom Bethell from the July 2010 - August 2010 issue

There’s no reason to compare his situation to Reagan’s c. 1982.

It’s a good bet right now that Barack Obama will be a one-term president. The enthusiasm that once shielded this hyphenated American has dissipated. His supporters, although still numerous, have discovered that he lacks Bill Clinton’s centrist instincts, and even his charm. The anti-Bush mania that swept the country from 2006-09 finally burned itself out.

It’s always possible that the Republicans will nominate a dud. That has happened so often that it should even be considered likely. Not since 1980 has there been an outstanding GOP candidate. But at this stage it’s too difficult to predict the 2012 nominee, so I’ll drop that subject.

Most important from Obama’s point of view is the economy. It is still in poor shape and is likely to stay that way. The unemployment picture has not brightened. In California it is 12.6 percent, while in Michigan it is 14.9 percent. In Europe, meanwhile, the economic picture ranges from uncertain to grave and I’ll have more to say on that.

I was glad to hear the news media’s unofficial position on Obama’s prospects the other day when I bumped into an old friend, Jim Barnes, the political correspondent for National Journal. He was at a cocktail party that our esteemed publisher gave for Bob Tyrrell’s excellent new book, After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery. I last saw Barnes when he was a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute in the early 1980s. He was nonpartisan then and so he remains today — as befits the creator of National Journal’s Insiders Poll. Sometimes he appears on Gwen Ifill’s PBS program Washington Week, which features three or four Washington journalists who help Ms. Ifill frame the conventional wisdom of the week.

When I asked Jim Barnes about Obama’s political chances he said he had heard talk of the parallel between the president’s position now and that of Ronald Reagan in 1982. Reagan had been in office for a little more than a year and the economy wasn’t doing so well then, either. But it recovered strongly in 1983, and of course Reagan easily won reelection. So this was a reason for Obama’s supporters to look on the bright side.

A week later I heard the same analysis on Meet the Press from Robert Shrum, a longtime Democratic insider. He worked for Sens. Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, and Kerrey, and for other liberals too numerous to list, but not for Clinton or Obama. (Eventually he was considered jinxed, all eight of his candidates having failed to win the presidency.)

Anyway, Bob Shrum too compared Obama’s situation to Reagan’s in 1982.

Here’s why I think that analogy is wrong. It could even be that our situation is the opposite of what it was in 1982. The economic recession that year was to some extent the inadvertent by-product of the big Reagan tax cut of 1981. That very desirable legislation reduced the top income tax rate to 40 percent, from 70 percent, which is where it had been since the mid-1960s. The 1981 law also allowed tax brackets to be adjusted for inflation, then much higher than it is now. Nominally higher wages were moving taxpayers into higher tax brackets, producing a contraction throughout the economy.

The liberals as usual understood nothing. Ronald Reagan did understand what was going on, however, which is why he became a hero to the “Reagan Democrats.” The Reagan tax cut, enacted within months of his becoming president, was one of the most important changes in tax law in the postwar era; it also inspired Margaret Thatcher to enact comparable tax reductions in Britain.

But the new U.S. law had this problem. It didn’t take effect until 1983. The delay encouraged the postponement of earnings and economic decision-making until 1983, when the much more friendly tax rates took effect. Thus the slump of 1982.

Today we may well be in the opposite position. The new tax laws for 2011 are still unclear. “Tax extender” legislation is making its way on Capitol Hill even as I write, and its final shape is uncertain. That is an important reason why capitalists are sitting on a lot of capital right now and hiring is sluggish.

But it is clear that tax rates on upper incomes and on capital gains will increase, perhaps sharply. We know what Obama thinks about the rich, even if he is one of them. He thinks they should be punished. He wants tax law to reassert its punitive role. He is actually the opposite of Reagan in this as in many other respects.

With tax rates on capital and upper incomes set to increase next year, 2010 may well turn out to be a good year in which to complete pending or moveable financial transactions. So tax prospects may even be stimulating the economy right now, in contrast to slowing it in 1982.

The argument for introducing much lower tax rates in the 1980s was known as supply-side economics, and two things should be immediately said: it was very successful economically and very unpopular with the intelligentsia. They never stopped complaining about it and now, a generation later, they have regained the upper hand. Supply-side ideas are so unfashionable that no one even wants to talk about them.

Supply-siders — prominent among them Robert Bartley and Jude Wanniski of the Wall Street Journal, and the late congressman Jack Kemp (none of them economists) — introduced incentives into fiscal policy. As economics is all about incentives, this was an important if belated innovation.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (139) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Shamus| 8.17.10 @ 6:35AM

Reagan knew what to do after he won election, while Obama is struggling. The stimulus policy has done nothing to improve the economy, while other bills have had negative effects. As one commentator noted, we could have suspended all taxes for two years using the money squandered in the stimulus. If Americans are foolish enough to elect Obama a second time, they will deserve to suffer the consequences.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 8:13AM

"It's a good bet right now that Barack Obama will be a one-term president."

Bethell: False Prophet; you said that about Clinton, and think everyone outside the GOP is a sucker. You write "it's a good bet", but you wouldn't wager $50.00, because you would lose. Tom Bethell : false prophet, mid-level shill for the GOP.
Again, it's not that I like Dems so much, it's that since Reagan you keep stringing the electorate along, saying "trust us, we'll run a good candidate next time", but you don't; you keep jerking us around, saying, "we screwed up with Bush, Dole, McCain, but give us another chance, we'll elect another Reagan."

It's been a long joke, but the joke is over.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.17.10 @ 8:41AM

I will wager you a hundred Obama is one term President. In fact, if you can scrape together a thousand dollars you're covered.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 9:04AM

Problem is, what if Obama dies in office?, that would make him a one-term prez.
Plus, someone would have to hold the bet money, so that the payoff would be guaranteed. It would have to be a bond, to be sure-- after McCain, I don't trust Republicans so much as across the street.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.17.10 @ 11:39AM

It's a gentleman's bet. If I win I don't care if you pay me. If you win, you're a liberal so you'll make an excuse that will preclude you from paying the bet. In fact, you're already doing it. My e-mail is billhusseinostalin@gmail.com. Anyone want to make that bet come on. I will cover any bet. Obama is the ultimate lose. He hates America and has a negative attitude about winners. For that reason alone I will cover your bet. His politics make him a double loser.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 5:05PM

If someone here had a handle such as Bob O' Hitler, would you trust him? you'd be a fool to.

SpiralArchitect| 8.17.10 @ 6:18PM

OK. We know, to ' Alan Brooks ', economics and politics are incomprehensible. Perhaps now is the time to add satire...

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.17.10 @ 6:53PM

I knew you had no confidence in your bet. By the way, your ignorance is showing. "A name, a name, what's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." In short, Alan Brooks, you're not very educated. And it shows.

DesertFox| 8.17.10 @ 7:40PM

I trust him. Come on, Mr. Brooks. If you don't believe "The One" is a one-term president, then show your liberal conviction and take on the wager.

NEGRO X| 8.17.10 @ 9:25PM

Anyone who listens to Brooks is moron.Brooks how are your buddies at westboro doing?

Phil Ferguson| 8.18.10 @ 8:58PM

Suppose demonic Obama, wanting total control over what's left of America - declares martial law?

vtwin| 8.17.10 @ 9:25AM

Saying, “it's a good bet right now that Barack Obama will be a one-term president,” is like jerking off it doesn’t accomplish anything but it feels good so the right wing nuts say it.

JmsA| 8.17.10 @ 11:57AM

vtwin,

Funny, you didn't refute anything the author said. Could it be that either you don't know anything about it, or if I do, you can't provide a cogent argument against it. I'd venture to say it is more the former, though the latter also seems quite plausible, given that you don't know that actuarial analysis, on which Medicare and Social Security projections such as those in the "Actuarial Publications" links you provided, are impossible without statistics. Maybe you should continue wanking off, since you seem so well acquainted with it, and leave the thinking to the grown ups.

carnot| 8.17.10 @ 12:13PM

9.5% and climbing

wodiej| 8.17.10 @ 3:51PM

That's nasty....no one cares about extracurricular sexual activities that people do alone because they can't use self control

Mark MacInnis| 8.17.10 @ 10:14AM

I'll go all of you one better: Not only will Obama be a one-term president, he will only be a one-time nominee. He will not even be the choice of his party to run in 2012. I have been on record with this position since February...he has created such contre temps that he is toxic to his own party. Even Harry Reid dusted on his Ground Zero mosque position....the dems will see dumping Barry as their only option-and they will nominate Hillary....bank on it.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 10:59AM

Whatever Obama's faults may be, I don't trust Republicans across the street even if they are escorted by their parents.

A.M. Mallett| 8.17.10 @ 12:11PM

Republicans are not going to be counting on your vote in any event.

Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 4:59PM

"Republicans are not going to be counting on your vote in any event."

DUH!
I wouldn't trust a Republican across the street if he was with:
both parents,
a school 'Safety',
the Vice Principal,
the Principal

Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 5:14PM

Since the Cold War ended, the GOP had four (we'll leave out Bush 41, since the Soviet union didn't fold until 1991) general elections: '96, 2000, '04, '08.

They BLEW IT.

Nobody gets rewarded for blowing it.

drgene| 8.17.10 @ 6:55PM

Mr Brooks:
Your penchant for smug acerbic remarks does nothing to advance the discussion.
Could it be that your last brain transplant
was a discard of Harry Reid. Better luck next life!

Your demonization of the GOP reveals a simplistic
view of the world of politics--like a peasant who
praises and blames all things good and bad on the
Party in PRC. Maybe you'd like to immigrate there?

Tim*| 8.17.10 @ 9:35PM

Now ,You Go Tell That To Obama .

jwolff44| 8.18.10 @ 3:27PM

Monica was rewarded for blowing it ... LOL
Besides, in the post WWII era, the GOP has managed to have 4 two term presidential runs - the Dems have ONLY had 1.

GavInTucson| 8.19.10 @ 12:50AM

I think a funnier argument would be that you wouldn't trust a Republican across the street if he was with two Democrats.

(Or the other way around... it really doesn't matter)

GavInTucson| 8.19.10 @ 12:47AM

Well, Alan, I'm with you on the idea of Bush, Dole, and McCain being dud candidates. And, if you know me, I'm certainly no fan of the Democrats.

Also, if I read you correctly, you pointed out that the Republicans haven't run a good candidate since Reagan. If I'm right about that, then I agree with you once more. Two times in one article? Who-da-thunk-it?

vtwin| 8.17.10 @ 9:03AM

“[Reagan’s ] Supply Side policies created the biggest budget deficits in history."
“Jimmy Carter’s last budget produced a deficit of $77 billion…Reagan’s first budget swelled the deficit to $128 billion... next year, 1983, to $208 billion and... By 1992, at the end of the “Reagan Revolution” …the deficit was approaching $300 billion a year.”
“Annual deficits, of course, accumulate to the national debt. In 1980, the national debt amounted to less than $1 trillion. By the end of 1992, it had reached $4.35 trillion.”
“The debt, which had taken over 200 years to reach $1 trillion, quadrupled in the 12 years of Supply Side Economics.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class.”
“The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded.”
“Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years.”
“And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.”
“By the time Clinton left office, the government was running surpluses of almost $140 billion per year.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Bush, of course, returned to the Supply Side policies of Reagan and his father. He lowered taxes on the very rich “
“[Bush’s] $1.6 trillion in tax cuts give 45% of the benefits to the top 1% of the population.”
“Bush turned a $136 billion surplus from Bill Clinton into a $158 billion deficit in his first year.”
And the national debt increased over the nest eight years from at $5.8 trillion to over $10 Trillion.
And by the end of the Bush Administration the country was in the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0514-20.htm

Indiana Alex| 8.17.10 @ 9:30AM

If you think that tax increases produce major economic expansion, stick around, you will be proven wrong.

Most Clinton fans that are Obama fans as well are economic illiterates, which you prove every time you post.

Clinton started out strongly to the left, until he lost Congress and was in danger of being a one term President.

He then cut taxes, reduced government spending, and although he takes credit for balancing the budget, he demanded that congress spend more than they wanted to, refusing to sign bills and effectively shutting down the government, until congress finally increased spending to where he wanted it.

Liberals are often not only ignorant of economics, but short term history as well.

vtwin| 8.17.10 @ 9:56AM

“Will be proven wrong?” I’m sorry, but you appear to be ignorant of or have chosen to ignore the economic history of the last thirty years.

Mike| 8.17.10 @ 10:25AM

Reagan cut the insanely confiscatory taxes but he also poured money into the Defense budget that had been neglected by Carter. I am not making a judgement as to the wisdom of this military build up but it was expensive. His administration had to deal with the Carter induced recession of 1982 so tax receipts were bound to fall. There is no doubt that he and his policies brought in an un-precedented stretch of economic success.

The same problem plagued Bush 2 when he took office in 2001. The Clinton induced recession of 2001 reduced government receipts thus swelling the deficit. After 9/11, with defense spending , all bets were off. Again, no judgement as to the wisdom of the insane wars we have been fighting.

Blaming the 2008 crash on Bush truly shows your ignorance of the facts. Blame it on Barney Frank, Dodd and Fannie and Freddie. Those were the clowns pushing for trillions in loans to people that could never pay them back. Blame it on Robert Rubin and Clinton who pushed for the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999. Of all of the problems to blame on Bush, the crash of 2008 is not one of them.

You can cut and paste from some cheesy website all day long. That doesn't mean you are taken seriously.

The buffoon in the White House will be looking for employment in January of 2013.

vtwin| 8.17.10 @ 3:55PM

I agree the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was a bad idea and it was signed into law by Clinton but you failed to note that the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was another
Republican idea.

a.k.a the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB):

Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas),
Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and
Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).

vtwin| 8.17.10 @ 4:07PM

Yes, Fannie and Freddie were part of the “housing bubble crisis” but you ignore Wall Street’s role to blame the Democrats. And, you ignore Bush’s doubling of the national debt as a factor in the great economic meltdown that became in late 2006.

vtwin| 8.17.10 @ 4:09PM

“The buffoon in the White House will be looking for employment in January of 2013.”

Jerk, jerk, jerk…ah!

vtwin| 8.17.10 @ 5:48PM

A satirical commentary by John Bird and John Fortune on the subprime crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g

Indiana Alex| 8.17.10 @ 12:20PM

And you, just like your childish liberal friends, who seem to believe there is a way to alleviate the human condition through some sort of government sponsored "fairness" or "justice", seek desperately to express yourself through the dull and doubious thoughts of others, as you are incapable of rational orriginal thought.

JmsA| 8.17.10 @ 12:25PM

vitwin,

No, you're the one that's ignorant. Reagan's deficits came about because the democrat controlled congress kept on overspending. Put away your old and worn out talking points and try to figure out that Medicare and Social Security projections, such as those in the "Actuarial Publications" governments you provided in an attempt to butress your Medicare and Social Security are solvent arguments--cannot be accomplished without actuarial analysis, that is statistics.

Tim*| 8.17.10 @ 10:34PM

For those keeping track, the debt estimate for the end of 2010 -- two years into Obama's term -- is $13.787 trillion. That's a 38 percent increase over two years. Looked at another way, the debt under Bush went up $4.357 trillion over eight years, while it has gone up under Obama by $3.801 trillion in two years.

Sam Vaughn| 8.17.10 @ 10:17AM

Tell a lie often enough it gathers the aura of truth. vtwin - In fact revenue government revenue went up during the Reagan years. It was out of control spending by the Democrat controlled congress. Now we've got the worst of both worlds. Increased taxes slow's the velocity of money. Government receipts will go down, there will be less money to invest in new business and spending continues to increase. Pretty simple.

vtwin idiot| 8.17.10 @ 4:14PM

Your source is a "progressive" dink tank.
Loser.

vtwin| 8.17.10 @ 5:36PM

When you can't dispute the facts attack the source.

Where did you lean that tactic from FOX noise or Rush Limdick?

JP| 8.17.10 @ 7:15AM

Surprisingly Bethell never mentions Paul Volker. Volker, a Carter appointee, began raising interest rates in 1980. By 1981 they were upwards of 20%. Inflation between 1979 and 1981 went from 7% to 14%. By 1983 inflation dropped to under 7% again. But not before creating the 1981-1982 Recession. One cannot triple interest rates without causing a recession.

Howard| 8.17.10 @ 7:44AM

I agree with you. In fact interest rates started rising in late 1979. My first mortgage in 1985 was 14% ARM. However, the combination of lower taxes and Reagan's pro-business/pro-markets moved things along. I do agree with Bruce Bartlett that the GOP got lazy and exerted no discipline on spending. So while the tax set up was okay, they let the budget get out of control. Bush never vetoed a bill. And of course, we are stuck with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

Indiana Alex| 8.17.10 @ 9:26AM

Increasing productivity allows the economy to grow faster without producing inflation.

The strategy was actually brilliant, raise rates to try to kill the lingering effects of stagflation, while lowering taxes and reducing regulation to increase productivity.

Wala, high rates of real growth, with comparitively less inflation.

emo| 8.17.10 @ 7:28AM

I woulsnt count on Obama being a one term President just yet.

1. A GOP victory could do the following:
A) Gridlock ends obamanomics, economy does well in 2011 and 2012 Obama get relected
B) GOP in majority fails to even push repealing Obamacare and other Obama disgraces and GOP base is disillusioned and doesnt vote in 2012

2) Amnesty gives Obama another 5m+ votes
3) Americans are increasingly dumbed down and leftist. Dont count on them correcting their mistake in 2012 like they did in 1980

grumpygresh| 8.17.10 @ 12:01PM

Although a GOP victory would curb further abuses, it would not yet reverse the damage such as tax hikes and health care so the economy will likely not do well in 2011. Furthermore, a GOP House would be instrumental in launching investigations like never before. The outcome of so many investigations will likely bear fruit and be impossible for the Leftist media to ignore. Attempting to issue amnesty by executive order will not necessarily yield the windfall of "undocumented" Democrats to carry 0bama over the finish line in 2012. This would be very difficult to implement w/o congressional funding; it would lead to some very incendiary and embarrassing hearings. There would also be some substantial public outcry.
As far as the public becoming Leftists and dumb, I'm afraid that this is indeed a generational problem caused by an unfortunate lack of conservative activism and complacency over the years.

Nunya| 8.17.10 @ 2:11PM

I'm with BillHussein O'Stalin on this one, I'm betting he's out in Jan '12. My problem is, I haven't seen a strong Conservative in all of the potential candidates. I don't give a damn about "Republican" vs. "Democrat", the last administration proved there isn't a bit of difference between the two--the Progressives have taken over both parties. I want a true Conservative--whatever they call themselves. Enough with the "go along to get along" idiots we now have in Congress, spending our grandchildren into oblivion. Oh for the resurrection of a Jefferson, a Washington, or even an Andrew Jackson--men who knew what a "Representative Republic" was supposed to be. 234 years later we have....who?

DesertFox| 8.17.10 @ 7:59PM

I already see a true conservative and patriotic American-Sarah Palin.

Stephanie| 8.17.10 @ 9:38PM

BoyHowdy DesertFox! I'm on THAT bandwagon!

RCV| 8.17.10 @ 11:19PM

And what a promising record - couldn't even finish out her term as governor - just up and quit one day! I don' t think the American people are going to fall for a winking quitter.

BackToBasics| 8.17.10 @ 7:06PM

Yes, a Republican Congress will deflect blame for the bad economy away from Obam. Even if they only get the House of Rep, the media will give them 100% of the blame them for the bad economy. The mostly stupid American public will go along with this by about 49 - 52%, enough to get him reelected. The voters will crow on about how it is good to have divided government.

If he's elected again we will get amnesty and it will add a lot more than 5 million to the Democrats rolls. If that happens, IT'S OVER!!!!!

America will be divided somehow civily and geographically but along what lines is difficult to tell. Those things will sort themselves out with much bloodshed and perhaps an outside attack by one or more of our enemies. The negative aspects of human nature, especially the envious and selfish parts of it, have risen to the forefront of a majority of the public and this does not bode well for our beloved country. What a shame.

It is even more painful to think of what we could have become if we had adhered to conservative principles back when the Great Society programs were begun in 1965 by one of the 4 worst American presidents, Lyndon Johnson.

higgins1990| 8.17.10 @ 7:30AM

When the MSM can no longer prop him up, and his approval drops into the low 30s, what makes you think that Obama will allow an election in 2012? What in his character/history makes you think he will willingly cede power? Just askin'...

emo| 8.17.10 @ 7:36AM

Obama's approval wont fall that low. His floor seems to be about 40-45%. There are too many people riding in the wagon for his approval to fall that low

Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 8:31AM

"There are too many people riding in the wagon..."

Such as Granny and Gramps.

Matt Morehouse| 8.17.10 @ 10:23AM

... and Consuelo and Pablo.

Louis Jenkins| 8.17.10 @ 1:26PM

...and Jimmy and Patrick (if you get my drift).

Pete| 8.17.10 @ 10:21AM

I would guess about 2%, the progressive elites, are IN the wagon, and the other 38% are sucking on the tailpipe.

carnot| 8.17.10 @ 12:16PM

lol!!

alice moore| 8.17.10 @ 8:26AM

There have been many crises in American History. The elections of 1860 and 1864 were not deferred because of the Civil War.

It seems to be presupposed that Team Obama could actually pull off a deferment. That assumes an all around brilliance in the Ruling Class.

Many will point to the "victories" in Health Care and environmental legislation. One thing is forgotten, though, these programs have not been implemented at this time. So it would premature to award success. There are legal challenges in several states as well. Even if these hurdles were to be cleared, I predict that there will be a mass unenforceable non-compliance.

The Obama team showed savvy in winning a very tough primary and general election. They've shown incompetence in other areas. This would be their handling of the BP oil spill. They thought this was an exploitable crisis that could provide a propagandistic means to further their agenda. Trouble is, they had no unglamorous solution.

Then there is the choice of vacations by the family. If Michelle Obama had a one hour photo op in a nursing home in Kansas, then snuck off to Spain, she would have pulled it off. It would have been enough for the Mushy Middle Hallmarxist Booboisie.

So these guys can actually call off an election? You're right, Obama won't be willing but, neither was Jimmy Carter.

figus janus| 8.17.10 @ 7:32AM

I am a Puerto Rican, American first, Spanish second. I am a legal citizen like all Puerto Ricans. Just want everyone to know this just in case.
President O thinks that all rich people that are not black are evil. He coddles everyone but the whites. He treats our enemies better than our allies. Look at Britain and Israel. He cancels events with Christians but has dinners with Muslims.
The economy will languish as long as he spouts his hateful rhetoric. He just has to tell the blacks in America to stop looking back at history and look forward to a better life.
Almost all whites in America are not prejudice But all whites are assumed to be racists!
I grew up in NYC and i was taught by my peers that whitey was the enemy and the U.N. was the good guy. Globalization was the key to a Utopia.
Then I got a job and realized that its hard out there and you need to bust your hump to get what you want.
I did not learn my lesson I only paid lip service and I am now in debt up to my eyeballs paying off credit card bills. I lived a life beyond my means for too long and I am paying for it. Just like everyone else in America hence the slow down in the economy. Unfortunately I guess I learned my lesson before the government. When and if the government learns that it has to pay its credit card debt off is so scary for me I actually lose sleep. Pray that America wakes up and gets people who are responsible in office again!
NOT JUST REPUBLICANS, EVERYONE IN OFFICE!!!!!!!

TennesseeVolunteer| 8.17.10 @ 7:41AM

Tom, like most Washington insiders you like to cloak the simplest of "Golden Rules" with all kind of financial gobbledygook which makes all of you up there "just seem so much smarter than the rest of us".
Here it is in a nutshell...When you spend more than you make, you are about to run into trouble. when you spend more than you make and have debt that is 3-5 times your annual income...you are about to go under.
I think Ronald Reagan would have understood that.

Sarbo| 8.17.10 @ 7:59AM

Both Barnes and Shrum are members of JournoList. Whaddya expect?

Tom| 8.17.10 @ 8:02AM

"China, surely, is destined to become the world leader, just as the U.S. did 100 years ago."

I keep reading things like this and I wonder why? China is a demographic collapse waiting to happen; it will get old before it gets rich. There is nobody who has a clue what such a collapse will mean to a nation that is still very much developing and poor. My bet is it will not be pretty.

Penrose| 8.17.10 @ 8:29AM

Ballots can be stuffed like sausages as Senator Flanken knows. Obama can win--then we can forget about elections--ever

SpiralArchitect| 8.17.10 @ 6:34PM

Exactly. This is the reason I believe that Harry Reid will still be in office after this years elections.

As Nevada resident, given the chance, I would vote for a Billy Goat over Hary Reid - get his scury ass out of office!

Ponder the notion he is willing to spendf $50,ooo,ooo + to get re -elected to the US Senate.

$50 million for a position in government - what kind of return is he expecting
for this... investment?

Harry the Horrible| 8.17.10 @ 8:37AM

The nightmare ain't over until they swear in Obama's successor.
And maybe not then...

DonDuke | 8.17.10 @ 12:30PM

Couldn't agree more Harry! As the author says "It's always possible that the Republicans will nominate a dud. That has happened so often that it should even be considered likely. ". Tell you the truth..... I haven't seen anyone lately that could even shine Reagans shoes much less slip into them. We'll see but Don't count your chickens.......

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.17.10 @ 8:55AM

For the last 50 years a ruling class has developed which runs Washington.

Members of both parties engage in what appear to be political differences but are merely two sides of the same coin.

The public treasury has been spent into oblivion by both parties with slight differences of spending habits and preferences.

Obama was simply elected as the new King of this mess and it was due to a preponderance of ignorance of a public who thinks you can get something for nothing.

In the short term the economy has no chance of getting better. In the long term the economy has a great chance of getting worse. Much worse then anyone can conceive of right now because the ruling elite are still hanging onto outdated concepts of spending your way out of failure.

In essence, Obama was the worst possible candidate at the worst possible time. The fact that he was elected shows America is in more trouble then simple economics can improve.

Obama hates what's best about America so on that score alone he will fail and become a one term President. There are few inside the beltway with the guts it will take to cut the size of government at the federal level and tell the states flatly, the joy ride is over.

Forty nine states are carrying massive budget deficits and it appears to be on the verge of getting worse.

The political pundit class hasn't got the brainpower to see what's needed or, if they do, they are afraid of having their meal tickets canceled if they tell the public the truth.

The truth is that even Reagan caved into the Washington leviathan with a spending spree that is rolling to this day. Reagan had an opportunity to gut several federal agencies but for some reason he didn't take it.

What is the future? For Obama he will take more vacations at public expense and continue to apologize for America. The public may learn a valuable lesson here about socialism but I doubt it.

Until there are significant cuts and pay freezes at the federal level look for continued disaster. It's the only way out and no one will discuss it.

Harry the Horrible| 8.17.10 @ 1:05PM

What really needs to change are the responsibilities of the Federal Government. Most of its power needs to devolve to the several states. Do we need a Federal Departs of Education, Energy, etc.? What have they accomplished?

Let the states and the people run things. Stop the states from picking each other's pockets.

Until this changes, the Federales can't be reigned in.

Nunya| 8.17.10 @ 2:23PM

Harry, you are absolutely correct; however, you must have forgotton about the Civil War. It wasn't about slavery as people would have you believe, it was about State's Rights. The Feds won, and nothing has halted their expansion since (though there have been a couple of Presidents that have slowed it down a bit). There is no way that the ruling class is going to allow the dismantling of their power. They would rather see the entire country fail and go into turmoil than give up what has taken 150 years to build up.

I have very little hope that this country will recover the Progressive agenda that has been stuffed down its throat, without severe repurcussions and possibly bloodshed. I hate to think like that, but I haven't seen a glimmer of hope for a while...

BackToBasics| 8.17.10 @ 7:22PM

Yes, we've been sold out by the Republicans too. Bush Jr. was terrible and paved the way for Obam. His father was left-of-center too.

But even Reagan, although far superior to anyone since was disappointing in many ways. He did not have the stomach to cut spending, he was weak on his Supreme Court picks of Souter and O'Connor. Even I could see through these two. And he signed the first amnesty bill in 1986 that opened up the door MUCH MORE for the current overrunning of the country.

He was good in fighting communism and I liked his idea of using Iranian money to fund the Contras. I see it as a covert operation even if the left cries that it was illegal because of phony laws they passed in the mid 1970's against such ops ONLY as a way to weaken America. So, some positives but some some critical weaknesses too.

So, he was okay, although not great, but to turn the country around we need someone even stronger than he was in following conservative principles and I do not see anyone on the horizon like this.

RCV| 8.17.10 @ 11:25PM

Given where you draw the line for the "center" (BushI "left of center"???), I'm not surprised you don't see anyone on the horizon conservative enough for you.

BackToBasics| 8.18.10 @ 2:39AM

My comment's point was that we need some strong medicine to cure a very sick patient, i.e. our country. The strong medicine is to go back to following the Constitution with a limited Federal governemnt and Bush Sr. did little to get us back on that track.

He raised taxes, the Federal government grew larger under his watch, not smaller, he pushed for NAFTA which took the GATT Treaty in 1986 (under Reagan's watch - another minus) to a whole new level. What NAFTA did, besides lower trade barriers, was essentially make workers a commodity that could be traded away. There was not a need then OR NOW for the USA to do this. We have a highly skilled and underutilized workforce. We had an economic model that allowed our wages to be higher than others and we still prospered and grew. Our kids could have abetter future than we had - but not these days.

Bush Sr. laid a lot of the foundation for this. He was good on his Supreme Court picks which is his main strength.

But in light of what we needed then and even moreso now, he lead us away from Reagan's partial recovery instead of giving us more of it. The country went left under him compared to Reagan's days and has gone ever more swiftly down the leftist path ever since.

So, yes, I call him left-of-center. I voted for him too since I believed I had no choice. But after him, Dole, Bush Jr. and McCain, I finally voted third party in 2008 and I will not support a mushy middle candidate even if it means Obam wins in 2012. We elected mushy middle types like Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. and they STILL get all the blame from the angry, envious left. Better to get the blame and have a strong candidate to show for it than get the blame with these establishment, get-along types.

No more sugar water, mushy type candidates and Republican presidents, I want to at least try for the strong medicine we need!

And no more trading of our workers as commodities. If ours are too expensive, throw them away and get some cheap foreigners - all presidents have been going this route even Reagan when he signed onto GATT. The figure I have seen is that we have the resources and workforce to be 96% self-sufficient. We do not need these free trade treaties, other countries needed them, not us.

scotchieguy| 8.17.10 @ 9:32PM

"The worse possible candidate at the worse possible time." This is so true. I doubt we can ever recover from this. A second term? Won't matter anyway...

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.17.10 @ 9:20AM

"As a Citizen, as the President of the United States, AND as a Muslim, I feel I should weigh in on all of this. I was BORN Muslim. My Father was Muslim. My Step Father was Muslim. My Mother converted to ISLAM. Let me be clear...I was raised in Muslim Kenya and Muslim Indonesia. I attended Muslim Schools. I remember they would teach us to KILL THE JEW that was hiding behind a rock. Death to America. Death to Israel. America is the BIG SATAN and Israel is the LITTLE SATAN."
"I knelt on my Prayer Rug, facing Mecca, 5 times a day, and prayed to ALLAH. I have taken NASA's Space Exploration Mission away from them, and instead, have directed them to bolster the Self Esteem of my Muslim Brothers. I am using TAXPAYER MONIES to pay for the CONSTRUCTION OF MOSQUES overseas. I have instructed my STATE DEPARTMENT to give the IMAM of this 911 Mosque, FREE TRAVEL in a U.S. Gov't. Jet, paid for by the American Taxpayers, all over the Middle East. I attended the Muslim Ramadan Dinner, but NOT the National Prayer Breakfast."
"In conclusion. You people are either too STUPID or too P.C. to confront what I'm doing, right in front of your STUPID WHITE FACES. Enjoy the new Mosque. And I'd like to thank all of the Dead Americans, that my fellow Muslims MURDERED on 911, for making this all possible. Good night, and ALLAH AKBAR."

Steve A| 8.17.10 @ 9:32AM

The difference is that Obama's policies are sure fire losers for economic growth while Reagan had a clue & cut taxes. Cut ALL Federal spending 15% on EVERY program, including defense budget, lower ALL taxes, especially upper brackets & economy comes back. Key to cut ALL spending so you have an answer for the starving old peolpe & children. Just reply that we all need skin in the game.

Spyder308| 8.17.10 @ 11:49AM

Great idea. We lay off 15% of the border guards, 15 % of the bank regulators, 15% of the folks at FDA watching the food we imporot from China, 15% of the Homeland Security folks watching terrorists, 15% of our soldiers keeping folks like N Korea and Iran at bay, and while we are at it get rid of 15% or our teachers and 15% of our road crews. Simple minded ideas like yours are what got us in this mess to start with. There are no simple soultions.

Steve A| 8.17.10 @ 12:23PM

Hey Spyder, Just give them a 15% pay cut & tell them to suck it up like your pals tell me when they jack my taxes. Nobody ever asks me where I will get the cash when rates get jacked like in January. Keep military pay level, cut other costs on weapons programs etc.

Gerald Castellucci| 8.19.10 @ 9:55AM

Another great idea, 15% pay cut. Let's add to the number of workers in America who are putting in 40 hours of good work a week and are not taking home a living wage. Maybe we should go back to where our military families qualified for food stanps. Imagine if all the people working two jobs to make ends meet were able to make it on one job, that would free up a lot of jobs for the unemployeed.

scotchieguy| 8.17.10 @ 9:40PM

So what are your solutions?

Gerald Castellucci| 8.19.10 @ 10:05AM

My solution is that we do what our competitors are doing. We fund the development of new technologies and we, the American people, through our government make low interest loans to companies to set up manufacturing of those technologies here in America. High technology is all done by robots and machinery. The production costs have very little to do with the cost of labor. The reason all that manufacturing is overseas is that those governments offered low interest loans to the companies to get them to locate there. We also copy the Germans and make residential installation of renewable energy, solar panels, cost effective.
Basically we don't do defensive stuff like cutting back on the workers. We go on the offence, and build our industries.

Vinny| 8.17.10 @ 10:37AM

Save that photo, it has to be a collectors item. Finding this guy in the White House instead of some type of self gratification has to be rare.

Spyder308| 8.17.10 @ 11:15AM

Our last presindetn started a war so he would get elected to a second term. His ego only cost America a few thousand of our best and bravest. Obama is doing the job we elected him to do, to the best of his ability. If he doesn't get re-elected so be it.

Nunya| 8.17.10 @ 2:28PM

Obamao is an idiot with no real experience running ANYTHING except a campaign. Granted, he can speak well as long as he has his handy teleprompter, but the man CAN'T MAKE A DECISION to save his soul. Frankly, I'm convinced that someone else is pulling his strings, and he's just the front man.

Just as a side note, I'm no fan of GWB, either. He was a New World Order Progressive like his father, and never met a spending bill he didn't like. He was no conservative, and that's about the worst thing you can say about anyone....

Ned| 8.17.10 @ 3:09PM

the most frightening part about your post is that it's accurate... "Obama is doing the job we elected him to do, to the best of his ability." And the "best of his ability" turns out to be pretty damn poor.

Warrior | 8.17.10 @ 3:19PM

Spyder, if you try very hard, you can get that GED.

scotchieguy| 8.17.10 @ 9:50PM

Dude, do you ever ploof-wead your comennnts? You only have about 5 typos in "president!" heh heh heh...I won't even comment on your main point...I'll spare you that. Man, I'm still laughing at that!!! I have never seen a word more butchered than "presindetn." Too bleepin funny!!! I am truly and thoroughly laughing my ass off...Surely you must be a comedian...ha ha ha ha ha ha

scotchieguy| 8.17.10 @ 9:54PM

BTW, I'm guessing "Spyder 308" is some Ferrari you dream about. Better hope the sales manager doesn't make you go through a spelling bee to qualify for the loan...ha ha ha ha ha ha...I'm still howling at the funny way you spelled "president." Too damn funny!

Gerald Castellucci| 8.19.10 @ 10:08AM

No. It is one I have in my collection. I got it the hard way,Iworked for it along with everything else I have.

Steve A| 8.17.10 @ 11:29AM

Spyder, As hard as it is for you, you really need to turn the page on Bush, really man, get over it. OK, now take a look at the results generated by your man BO & his stimulus, bailouts, takeovers & back room deals to accomplish Obamacare. Are you with me?? Good, now, apologize to the rest of us for pulling the lever for this dunce & we can talk.

Gerald Castellucci| 8.19.10 @ 10:11AM

I can't. It is going to take years to repare all the stuff he screwed up. For example it will take at least 30 years to get our environment back to what it was when he took office.

George S| 8.17.10 @ 11:57AM

So what if he is a one term president? If I were president with a conservative Republican congress, I would seek to:

Repeal the withholding of taxes;
Dismantle the EPA;
Dismantle Education and HHS;
Repeal citizen standing in environmental law suits;
Phase out Medicare and Social Security with individual accounts;
Stimulate the construction industry with a Berlin Wall-like southern fence;
Empower states to collect federal taxes and dismantle the IRS....

If I could only get one or two of those -- and it cost me reelection -- I would gladly take it, retire to a cushy ex-president life and give the middle finger to progressives for ruining their chances to acquire power for the next hundred years.

What is the reverse of that?

Harry the Horrible| 8.17.10 @ 1:07PM

Where do I donate to your election fund?

scotchiegu| 8.17.10 @ 9:56PM

Great ideas. Just don't have "Spyder308" as your side-kick...he might derail your campaign!

RCV| 8.17.10 @ 12:02PM

We don't have referenda on Presidents, we have contested elections. The reason President Obama WIL be reelected is because it is difficult to name a GOP ticket that will even garner broad support among Republicans, let alone the general electorate. You just have to review the weekly postings here at TAS: anyone, from Santorum to Palin to Romney, draws howls of protests from one wing or another of the party. There is no ticket the GOP can field that has a chance of election in 2012.

carnot| 8.17.10 @ 12:24PM

maybe...but if unemployment keeps headed on its current trajectory...there alone will be a plurality of the electorate to vote against the First Prevaricator....:-).......

Margie| 8.17.10 @ 3:08PM

RCV says:
"You just have to review the weekly postings here at TAS: anyone, from Santorum to Palin to Romney, draws howls of protests from one wing or another of the party."

That's because conservatives don't march in lockstep. We don't follow a King. We have different opinions about different people and voice them. Thanks to Obummer, millions and millions of Americans are finally waking up to the reality of what LEFTIST and SOCIALIST means.

Hopefully conservatives will unite behind the best 'R' and that 'R' will become the nominee. True conservatives NEVER give up.

"..let him put his mouth in the dust-- there may yet be hope.." Lam. 3:29.

vtwin| 8.17.10 @ 4:33PM

“That's because conservatives don't march in lockstep. We don't follow a King. We have different opinions about different people and voice them.”

But then conservatives vote for anybody and everybody with a “R” after their name.

Margie| 8.17.10 @ 8:03PM

"But then conservatives vote for anybody and everybody with a “R” after their name."

If they did that smarty pants, we wouldn't have the Obamanation.

RCV| 8.17.10 @ 7:17PM

Margie - If you read the left blogs as I do along with the right ones, you'd be disabused of your belief that liberals and those further out on the left see eye-to-eye. I heard on our local Pacifica radio the other day how Obama is simply a tool of corporate America/ Wall Street / banking industry and the "most anti-union" Democrat we've ever had, and how his war-mongering policies are no different than GWB.

Margie| 8.17.10 @ 8:06PM

RCV~ well Obama is certainly a tool. We can now add that he's a tool of Islam as well. Isn't that just peachy?

RCV| 8.17.10 @ 11:29PM

No, he's just aware that we have this little thing called Freedom of Religion in our country, thanks to Madison and Jefferson.

Margie| 8.18.10 @ 1:29AM

The "Religion" of Islam, the one that says to "KILL THE INFIDELS!" That would be YOU, RCV, and all Americans. THAT Religion? Oh. So because this Leftist depraved President's ideology agrees with you~ you will sell out right along with him? Sell out on reality itself. That is really sad, RCV.

RCV| 8.18.10 @ 11:47AM

Margie: I don't know what kind of community you live in, but the one I live in has Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, a sprinkling of atheists and people of various miscellaneous faiths. The American Muslims I know are good and decent people, with families and children who are friends of my kids. They go to school, play soccer, are in the PTA, and vote in elections. Some are even Republicans. Like me, they cherish the freedom they enjoy as Americans and wouldn't trade it for the world. They are strong monotheists who rever Christ as a prophet, though not divine. They have respect for others of faith, including Jews and Christians. That is the reality I know. I'm sorry your perspective is different. But I'm not going to allow you to destroy or undermine the guarantees in my Bill of Rights anymore than I would let some Islamicist do so.

RCV| 8.18.10 @ 1:03PM

And you might look at Ed Koch's column on the subject in today's Jerusalem Post Online.

Margie| 8.20.10 @ 3:36AM

Do you deny that the Koran tells their people to kill us and that we are considered infidels, RCV?

Quit the trashing of me personally for two seconds and deal with the truth.

scotchieguy| 8.17.10 @ 10:01PM

Margie, what would your dream ticket for the republican party be?

Margie| 8.18.10 @ 1:41AM

One Too Many Scotchies,

I would have to pay much more attention to all of the good conservatives guys (and gals) out there these days in order to be able to answer that question. I don't have t.v. so I don't watch c-span like I used to. I used to watch them in action back in the 90's and got to "know" them that way. I keep forgetting I can watch c-span online.

I do like Chris Christie for his fearlessness in dealing with the Lefties and especially the Unions, he's pretty awesome in action. I love it. And Sarah Palin is great though I still prefer a man for the number one job.

I'm gonna have to get back to you though..

don| 8.17.10 @ 12:16PM

It's really not that complicated. We need tax rates to stay low and we need to limit spending. Bush did one but not the other, Obama is doing neither and stomping on the spending pedal as we accelerate toward the cliff. As for his being a one-termer I really have lost faith in the ability of many Americans to discern reality from nice thoughts and wishes. I mean we elected a guy who repeated "hope and change" until he won, despite being demonstrably neo-socialist. There are too many Alan Brooks' in the nation, who value their smug and condescending cynicism more than their freedom, for me to assume Obama will not win re-election. We can only hope and pray...and vote.

David | 8.17.10 @ 12:39PM

Do not underestimate Obama, the corrupt democratic election fixers, and the liberal big media.

The dems will not dump Obama and choose Hillary as their candidate for 2012. Bam Bam still has high 90's support from blacks. If the dems make Hilly the candidate, expect at least half the turnout by blacks that turned out in 2008 to stay home.

Bam Bam is likely to make Hilly his running mate and move Biden to Sec of State.

It amazes me that over 45% of people would still vote for him again after the disaster he has been. What do you think democrats are going to do? Vote Republican? No way.

I am telling you, it is possible for him to say, for instance, he will NOT let the tax cuts expire. If that eases the concerns of investors and business owners and they unleash the 2 trillion dollars they are hording now, you can expect significant improvment in the economy and a significant reduction in unemployment. That, coupled with putting Hilly on the ticket, and maybe doing one other thing that most of us (including conservatives) like, and I can see him being re-elected.

Most voters have short memories. Too many people will FEEL they can't turn-out the 1st black prez after one term. The repubs will have stopped much of what Bam Bam tries to do. Bam Bam, Hilly, the dems, and the major media will remind people over and over of how much they liked a divided government when Clinton was prez.

Yep, I can see it happening. But, I certainly don't see it the way RCV does believing that Bam Bam's re-election is a done deal. In fact, most polls show any republican against Bam Bam now, the repub wins - even Palin by 1 point.

RCV| 8.17.10 @ 1:10PM

I do agree with you, David, that the Democratic ticket in 2012 will be Obama-Clinton. Who do you think is most likely to secure the GOP nod?

BackToBasics| 8.17.10 @ 7:30PM

--The repubs will have stopped much of what Bam Bam tries to do. --

I doubt it. They may stop a little of the new stuff but they will not roll back Obamcare and they will not cut the deficit enough. I thinmk their deficits will be about 800 billion / year which will still ruin the country eventually.

David| 8.17.10 @ 1:03PM

Don't count on hearings and investigations by the repubs once they take the House to stir up trouble for Bam Bam and the dems. The media will cover it up. If the fact that it was ALL DEMOCRATS involved in the recent scandal in Bell, California, will all those city workers making enormous salaries and benefits, didn't make the news, nothing will.

David| 8.17.10 @ 1:25PM

I don't know what the ticket will look like. I hesitate to even mentions names because most, if not all, potential contenders are disliked by a number of people who post on this site. Many have legitimate reasons to oppose this or that candidate.

I do like Rick Santorum, Haley Barbour, Jim DeMint, maybe Bobby Jindal. I did like Mitch Daniels, but he claims that social issues need to be put on the back burner. Can't vote for him now. No Newt, Huckabee, Romney, or Palin.

BackToBasics| 8.17.10 @ 7:38PM

Palin is a good woman who I think is more intelligent than she comes across although she is too soft on illegal immigration. She is also a sensitive and emotional person and I think her "gaffes" come from the emotional side coming to the fore and somewhat overwhelming her core intelligence. If she would get tough on immigration she'd be better and I think she has the core intelligence to grow much.

-- But I do not support her because of immigration.

Huckabee - forget it. Soft on everything and probably a Southern Baptist minister of the Free Mason persuasion. He'd be just as bad as Jimmy Carter.

scotchieguy| 8.17.10 @ 10:07PM

What the heck is wrong w/ Palin? Most people on this site dream about her, er, dream about her on the ticket...

Redstateboy| 8.17.10 @ 1:32PM

It infuriates me to listen to Hussien babble that voting Republicans back in to power would be going back to the failed policies of the past. Who is truly {going back to the failed policies of the past} more than Hussien??!? Socialism - and anyone who questions whether Hussien is a Socialist or not is delusional - is a demonstrable failure.. Communism is a demonstrable failure.

Steve A| 8.17.10 @ 1:55PM

Condi Rice / Bobby Jindal 2012

Nunya| 8.17.10 @ 2:34PM

I'd vote for that team!

scotchieguy| 8.17.10 @ 10:10PM

Only problem is Condi won't run in a million years. That is as likely as Colin Power/Condi Rice...not happening.

Mark Shepler- Jupiter FL| 8.17.10 @ 2:10PM

All of this discussion of Obama's chances in 2012 is nice but, methinks, academic. Obama himself stated quite clearly what he thought of them. "I would rather be a really good one-term President than a mediocre two-term..." (I paraphrase). What do suppose he meant by that? After all, isn't the common assumption that a really good first term president, AS DEFINED BY THE PEOPLE, make him a shoo-in for re-election? Apparently, he was then, and judging by his subsequent constancy, is now still determined on a very deliberate course, the people's approval be damned. Say what you will about the man but you've got to give him one thing. A thing much in common with Reagan- determination. Unlike Reagan, he is sticking with and even "doubling-down", in today's parlance, on policies the vast majority of Americans neither want nor approve. Reagan was banking that his policies, policies which most Americans approved of, would in fact pay off and was rewarded with reelection because they did. Obama is determined to change America, as he has said from the get-go, with policies he knows Americans don't want and my guess is he's fully prepared to lose reelection to implement them. He said so and acts so.

Hoping he changes course to in a bid for reelection is a mistake. He tipped his hand regarding that and is aggressively pursuing his agenda irrespective of his personal political prospects or that of his party. He will not stop so he must be stopped this Nov. We should construct another Contract of America with the overarching theme being "A Veto Proof Majority". We must nationalize the congressional and senate elections with such an explicit bid to the electorate that, if granted, to stop any of his or Democrat's future acts and repeal those already taken and about to be taken in a lame duck Congress. A larger, transcending appeal will cause voters to view their local representative or Senator as part of the larger whole as we did in '94. And even though a voter feels his guy is ok he just may vote with us to achieve the larger goal of rolling back the Obama agenda. Of course, it's a long, long shot and probably will not succeed, particularly in the Senate, but it makes Obama, the Dem party and their whole magilla the issue not local pork. It should also enlarge our victory sufficient to cow the remaining Dems and put the fear of God in the rest of the "professional left".

Ironically, if we were to succeed in anything like this plan it would improve his chances in 2012.

wodiej| 8.17.10 @ 3:59PM

Everyone has an opinion but not one of us really knows what will happen. People think the GOP has no plan but Paul Ryan has a website called Roadmap for America. It covers deficits, medicare, jobs, cutting personal and corporate taxes. Add sealing the border and it's a done deal for a win in 2010 and 2012.

Let's keep our eye on the ball folks, not attack our own party and do all we can to be proactive and positive instead of criticism based on the past. Make sure you contribute to individuals, put signs in your yard and any other volunteer work that is needed to ensure victory for true conservatism.

Mattled| 8.17.10 @ 4:23PM

Reagan had 95% of the media AGAINST him----President NAMBLA (with Chrissy Matthews as Chairman), has 95% of the media FOR him. And he's still tanking. Those poll numbers skew heavy Dem. Take him down another 7 points. He's taost.

He's not going to run. Too much money in post-Prez waiting for the first co-racial man-boy. Look for him to split from Moochelle. The sooner the better before he collects on his billions from Petrobas, other Soros funded investments, Labor Unions, shark lawyers and the Muslims.

He doesn't care about poll numbers (although I do believe it really, really bugs him). He's done. He'll collect a few million (100?) and then bow out with all the drooling groupies money. Then when the media are left at the proverbial alter, they will start reporting on (gasp!) how crooked and dirty he was.

Hope and I'm keeping your change!!

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.10 @ 5:36PM

The Peasants are revolting! .....and smelly... we sweat a lot.

This government cannot make the farmers farm, or the doctors doctor, or the truckers...truck.

Store food, store water, buy lots of kerosene for your lamps.
"The Nays Of Texas" available by the grace of God, by October 1st. via PDF. that you can download and own.

RCV| 8.17.10 @ 7:13PM

Deodorant will be available under your new health care plans, Ken.

Dave M.| 8.19.10 @ 5:31AM

If I like the current brand of deodorant I already use will I be able to keep on using it under Obamacare? I sure hope so. Boy, that Obama, he's so good to me.

RCV| 8.19.10 @ 1:33PM

He cares about you, Dave. I realize that if you give a man deodorant, he'll stop smelling for a day, but if you teach him to make deodorant, pretty soon he'll turn into Tom's of Maine thanks to our free enterprise system that the framers gave us.

Margie| 8.17.10 @ 9:51PM

Ken,

I look forward to reading your e book. :^)

RCV| 8.19.10 @ 1:34PM

...and I as well.

drgene| 8.17.10 @ 7:01PM

It's time to stop talking to deaf ears.

Lord Obama will be re-nominated, and re-elected
for the same reason he won in 2008:for dumb white
women to shed their guilt of being "alleged racists",
to show how "open" they are to Hopeless Hope
promised by a narcissist mulatto.

Time to act:America has already been killed
by BHO. Time for the insurrection that leads
to the Resurrection. And time for his anyetsi.

RCV| 8.17.10 @ 7:10PM

Sick racist still hung up on sexual inadequacy that leads to fears of white women lusting after black men.

Just try your little insurrection nonsense and our fine law enforcement folks will be happy to put you away with the other Tim McVeighs who pop up from time to time. The rest of us will stick with electoral Republic were blessed to have.

Get Real| 8.17.10 @ 9:20PM

He is not the President!
See Art 2 Sec 1
Kenyan dad? SOL MoPhucher!

RCV| 8.18.10 @ 1:03PM

Right....and you're from Mars.

fantum| 8.18.10 @ 11:50AM

LOOK OUT!

Here comes stampede of Liberal Democrats abandoning Obama and rushing over to start waving the American Flag, denouncing high taxes, demanding smaller government, speaking out against abortion and gay marriage, offering transparency and bi-partisanship, calling for border security, and on and on...

Between now and November 2nd Democrats will be clamoring to seek the high ground disguised as Conservatives, then... if they win... right back to helping Obama with his anti-American push toward Socialism.

Democrats Sliding Off Air Force One...
http://usataxpayer.org/htm/vids.asp?A=99761191

OBAMA IS A MUSLIM DEDICATED TO REBUILDING AMERICA UNDER SOCIALISM and with deference to Islamic Law. In order to do this he must cause the collapse of our current government, capitalism, family-values and freedoms.

What better way to bring America down that to bow to Islam, abandon our allies, ignore our security, degrade our military, increase racial tensions, weaken our economy and place huge, unsustainable debit on American taxpayers.

So... just how stupid are you?

Barack Obama is a Muslim!
http://usataxpayer.org/?0019422256

Dave M.| 8.19.10 @ 5:22AM

China will not become the world leader. China's population will grow old before it becomes great. Also, China is a copycat economy, with little original innovation and a business model based on imitation. Finally, as the unfertile left dies off America will finally be released from its shackles and reclaim its greatness. Demographics is destiny.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 8.19.10 @ 4:59PM

"OBAMA IS A MUSLIM DEDICATED TO REBUILDING AMERICA UNDER SOCIALISM"

Anyone who says that is a moron.

Anyhoo, back on planet Earth, never underestimate the propensity of middle class suburbanites to be cowed by charges of "racism," which is pretty much what the Obama re-election campaign will consist of. Although the secret ballot may yet be his undoing.

Clinton was supposed to be a one-term President, too. But Clinton was was given the gift of a Republican Congress, which helped keep him out of mischief. Obama is likely to receive the same electoral gift this November. Plus, its unclear the Republicans really have any good candidate(s) to run for President in 2012. I'd give Obama easily a fifty percent shot at winning re-election.

WL| 8.20.10 @ 5:43AM

VERY GOOD ARTICLE...I do have one issue with the gentleman you are citing...(and don't get me wrong, gentleman like that REALLY SHOULD have more power in our politics - we sure need em)

The issue is his concept of writing the book about "the failure" of Reaganomics. With a conservative mind, I can absolutely see why he would naturally see that Reaganomics ultimately failed to curb the spending. HOWEVER, that is much like blaming Caesar Augustus for the barbarian invasion at the end of the Pax Romana. One thing is clear. Without CA, the Pax Romana WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED. The same think applies to the boom and prosperity that came from Reagans approach. I believe that successive presidents FAILED to keep discipline a priority and Partied on the back of his success, got reckless, and caved into the free spending miscreant liberals spenders. This tendency of conservatives to address shortcomings or imperfections in their own accomplshments with "FAILURE" is a near fatal flaw, that is routinely capitalized on by the opposition (who NEVER EVER EVAAH admit ANY shortcomings in their VOODOOH, SNAKE OIL non-thinking). We have to stop that.

He should have named his book something more along the lines of POINTS OF REFINEMENT FOR PERFECTING REAGANOMICS AT ITS NECESSARY AND HOPEFUL REINSTITUTION.

I know, that title is a little corny..but it sure beats the "WE ALL FAILED because his boom only lasted 20 years and resulted in deficits" when their is NO foolproof method for keeping FUTURE phony conservatives from abandoning his principles.

In short, the gentleman seems to be saying that since Reagan couldn't do EVERYTHING FOREVER, and could not institute all of his principles...he somehow failed. That is rubbish. He started it...and the rest of us FAILED to beat back the damnable DEMOCRAT LIBERALS, protect it, and institute the second phase...PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE.

WL| 8.20.10 @ 5:47AM

Sorry, I know the difference between PHYSICAL and FISCAL...I just get to typing and do that with all of those types of words... i.e. their, there and to,too etc.

Michele San Pietro| 8.22.10 @ 5:52PM

I hope with all my might that Obama will be a one-term president. It would be simply terrible to be forced to bear him until 2016.

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|95 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|116 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|57 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|102 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|60 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 1:07PM

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 11:14AM

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri