-
The Democrats’ Walmart Obsession
June 4, 2013 | 112 comments
-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 94 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
The Obama Watch
Off the Ropes
Behind the Obama comeback in lame-duck season.
A lot will be made of Barack Obama’s remarkable political recovery since his electoral “shellacking” of 6 weeks ago.
A politician who appeared to be headed for two possible years of lame-duckness was saved by the most active lame duck session of Congress in generations.
• They passed the tax “deal,” which included a few of Obama’s wish-list of non-stimulative “stimulus.”
• They passed a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (“DADT”), probably going a long way to soothe the far left fringe who were angry about the tax deal.
• They passed the START treaty.
• They passed the 9/11 “First Responders” health care bill
Each of these measures except for DADT repeal was done after substantial modification to the Democrats’ preferred legislation to meet Republican demands.
The short-term impact of this rapid-fire success for Obama was for him to reassert his primacy within the Democratic Party, a position which he’d de facto delegated to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by his absence during important policy debates, not least the socialized medicine bill commonly, and somewhat ironically given his near invisibility during the discussion, called Obamacare.
Obama is like a boxer who was beaten against the ropes, got a gash over his eye, but was helped by a good trainer between rounds and came out punching with surprising effectiveness against opponents who had thought that they had already won the bout.
That’s the good news for Obama. He would be wise not to get overconfident.
The START Treaty, once certain aspects of its applicability to possible future missile defense systems was cleared up, was not extremely objectionable. And it was unlikely to have failed even in the next Senate session once Republicans had had time to pretend to understand or care about it, which only a handful of Senators of either party do.
The 9/11 health care bill hubbub was primarily a debate about cost. The GOP got certain pork stripped from the bill, got the cost cut by more than 50%, and it passed with bipartisan support…as it would have in the next session as well.
Even DADT repeal, having gotten 65 votes in the Senate and passing the House with a 75-vote margin, is reasonably likely to have gone through in 2011 if it didn’t go through now.
And finally, hindsight on the tax “deal” is a colossal bundle of “what ifs” for both sides, with arguments being made by Republicans and Democrats alike that the other side played its hand better. Many conservatives believe that a GOP-majority House could have gotten a better deal in 2011 than was agreed to in the past few weeks. With a resurgent Obama and a Senate maintaining a Democrat majority, I’m skeptical of that claim. Furthermore, it’s hard to believe that whatever modest improvement could have been made would have been worth the economic turmoil certain to have been caused by tax rates rising, even if that rise were later retroactively rescinded.
The presidential election, just like our just-passed mid-term election, will be all about government spending and unemployment. While a few on the extremes of both parties might remember DADT repeal going into the 2012 elections, nobody will particularly care or talk about the 9/11 health care bill or the START Treaty. The tax issues, on the other hand, will be front and center again as the tax rate extension expires in two years.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (121) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/23/off-the-ropes
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
LMajito| 12.23.10 @ 6:30AM
once again the republicans are tripping over each other to do what is wrong and show they truly do not have a back bone...unless the leaders are replaced, the current members fired and new blood brought in, it'll be the same charade with the same results: punk repubs giving victory laps alongside dems...oh btw, how's that repub from mass working out? tea party members better look closer next time they endorse a clown like brown again...
DaveS| 12.23.10 @ 9:08AM
The list of 'Republicans' on these issues is pretty long: Snowe, Collins (the worst of them), Bennett (sour grapes for losing primary), Lugar (on START), Scott Brown (who really IS this guy?), Cochran. The ones in office after January 3 may be toast. my only criticism is that McConnell didn't come out absolutely against these measures from the get-go, and he did not tell the troops that the Dems were preparing a post-Thanksgiving blitz (maybe because HE didn't know). THAT was the maneuvering that did the Republicans (and the country) in. Maybe McConnell can be challenged by someone who'll threaten the Dems and not just 'negotiate' with them. With the country on your side after November 2, why not?
Wankel| 12.23.10 @ 10:01AM
Discouraging times. My confidence in establishment Republicans is rapidly approaching zero. Yeah, we can vote the bums out but with 2-4 years between elections, a lot of damage can be done in the interim. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is re-elected, especially if the GOP nominee is the young, beautiful, talented and vivacious Mitt Romney. Or maybe it will be Grassley or Hatch's "turn". I think we're already down the drain... might as well relax and not fight the current.
Jack Bauer| 12.23.10 @ 12:59PM
I'm still not sure McCain won't run again.
John2| 12.23.10 @ 2:59PM
Thank you for Grassley and Hatch, ha,, ha, ha, ha! Funniest line of the day so far.
But I do see your frustration with these RINO krappeheads. Vote them out. Vote them all out.
In the meantime, repeal, defund, dismantle all this krappe.
Kyle| 12.23.10 @ 4:59PM
Why does the Republican Party exist, if their is very little loyalty in the party when it comes to voting on legislation? We can see that what the RINOs did during this lame duck has really soured conservatives on the GOP Senate and we are also left wondering what cajones might actually exist in the House. Pat Toomey decided to flap his gums in support of DADT Repeal, and as far as I know, he was the only newly elected GOP Senator to voice an opinion about an issue being addressed in the lame duck; and his only words of wisdom was that he favors DADT Repeal.
McConnell and the GOP Senators should ask themselves this question. Are Republicans now more likely to win more seats and the presidency in 2012 as a result of capitulating during this lame duck? Is their base happy? I don't think so. So once again I ask; what is the point of having a Republican Party, if its members make their own selfish votes over and over again; votes which usually help Democrats push through their big government agenda.
Did you know, Obama got 19 judges confirmed during the lame duck? Remember when the gang of 14 had to be formed just so Bush could get 3, back when the GOP had 55 Senators. So you see, the Democrats and bringing tanks to do battle on the Senate floor while the GOP brings flowers. It is getting ridiculous, and the GOP is furthermore becoming irrelevant when it come to influencing the direction of this nation.
Farthgum| 12.25.10 @ 8:47AM
Brown (the Clown form Mass) is nothing more then a true blood Dem. A real con-artist. You are 100% correct LMajito
DAVID| 12.25.10 @ 9:23AM
The lame duck was a disaster for real Republicans. I really take these RINO's anymore. The only way to stop them is a third party. Maybe the Tea Party and Libertarian party can merge and can be a force for freedom. I reject the notion that a third party can not make a difference.
Inge| 12.23.10 @ 6:36AM
When 'trust' is squandered, it's dificult to get back.
Those, who got snookered in 2008 to vote for him (being lied to, misled etc), will never vote for him again.
The constand criticism about America, the worldwide apology tour of him during 2009, has convinced a large part of once supporters that he can't be trusted, and won't vote for him ever again!
Dano| 12.23.10 @ 9:06AM
I agree with Inge
Swing voters were attracted to an articulate (who can forget Biden's "...well dressed and clean black man" comment) politician who offered bipartisanship, transparency, etc. Even before his election, though, he disregarded campaign financing limits, then it was "I won, get over it," then the duplicitous health care shenanigans. I cannot see a path he can cut toward regaining the trust of independents no matter what he does. And a lot of what he does to gain the middle costs him more of his base. Also, who can look at the man on tv and not be repelled by his arrogant demeanor? And, last, with his (considerable) tin ears, there is much more than enough time in the two years of his presidency for him to alienate even more of his dwindling band of supporters. On to 2012!
Claypoole| 12.23.10 @ 12:36PM
If Obama is nominated and runs again in 2012, will someone--anyone--this time around demand loudly, publicly and often that all his records be released? Birth certificate, undergraduate and graduate records, passport records, writing (not the autobiographies; we need to see essays and briefs from Columbia and Harvard), and all the rest of the paper trail that has been denied to the voters.
John2| 12.23.10 @ 3:03PM
Oh yes, depend on it, there will be plenty of people who want to see his papers. This time there will be a slice of his core Komrades who will not vote for him unless he coughs up the bona fides, all the bona fides, and nothing but the bona fides.
Stevie| 12.23.10 @ 5:18PM
Yeah, if we still have a country by then.
Mel| 12.23.10 @ 5:55PM
There is no way he will run for 2012. States will require proof of eligibilty, which he will not be able to provide. So rather than expose the fraud of his ineligibilty and have his first term and all of his agenda voided, he will find some excuse to not run. He is going to have to lead everyone on, that he is running for a while so that the con is made good and then "bye, bye" "I had a great one term" "ruined the country as much as I could, oh and by the way, I fooled ya, I am a Muslim!"
It is hard for most of us normal folks to accept that a person could willfully work at destroying our beloved country. It is just such a humongous, outrageous con that a vast amount of otherwise rational people can't believe the truth when it is starring them in the face.
John DuBose| 12.25.10 @ 9:46AM
I have been told in private conversations that since the election of 2008, a few states have enacted laws requiring all presidential candidates to present valid birth certificates before they are allowed on the ballot. If anyone knows this for sure, please post.
Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:01AM
Wishful thinking .. but it's fun to watch y'all squirm ...
George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:02AM
What are you here for?
D. Taggart| 12.23.10 @ 11:43AM
He's here because he's an insecure, bed-wetting liberal. He's watching the path to his socialist utopia disintegrate after a bigger shellacking at the polls than the first mid-term after Watergate. Also not encouraging that people are fleeing broke blue states and going to responsible red states for opportunity. Insecure. Bed-wetter. Needs to pick some fights with conservatives.
John2| 12.23.10 @ 3:08PM
As you say, Purplegoof is a bedwetter; I say his motives also involve poop. After 34,226 of his posts, one concludes that he is here to empty his lefty diapers.
He is just throwing words around. I doubt that he is picking a fight because he cannot fight.
He is looking for love.
Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 3:38PM
Whatsamatta - no likey the lame duck session ... ?
Negro X| 12.23.10 @ 10:03PM
Purpletroll is a highly educated elitist witha PHD in scatology. He believes that conservative blacks are racist and stupid but he cannot reconcile his controller's dogma that minorites are incapable of racism. Confused, he sits in the corner of his mother's basement fingering his anus then sniffing it.
Stevie| 12.23.10 @ 5:20PM
SEIU?
Ret. Marine| 12.23.10 @ 6:51AM
Now this is funny. The so-called punks with the R's behind their title just got had, (and along comes someone with excuses for their actions), did they not. When the traitors are within, there is little the average Joe can do, turn to for relief, or will in one way or the other feel betrayed, again with no recource or actionable response. I never though I'd utter these words but, this is the first time in my life I feel BETRAYED by thosee with the title of leaders, and it will not go unnoticed in the future. May a pox be send upon your house you cowards.
Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:02AM
So is it that Obama had victories or the actual legislation you object to?
George True| 12.23.10 @ 10:41AM
The actual legislation.
martin j smith| 12.23.10 @ 7:58AM
Its about the economy ( unless there is a major terrorist attack at home or abroad ). stupid. Employment levels must show real signs of improvement. Knowing Obama as we all do, I think they will not because... He does not want our economy to really improve. Or, recover. A Jobless recovery is not a recovery. Then there are is attempts by decree to legislate without checks and balances--see the FCC gambit. There will be endless battles to oppose Obama's power grabs.
I think many more voters are engaged and not fooled by the utter contemptuous media. In fact I strongly suspect that in the last election the vote was as much against the Socialist DP as it was against the Pravda ( NYT ) or Izvestia ( WaPo ).
What I expect isa a very very nasty political civil war such that I have seen in my life. It will extremely heated and there could be instigted and choreographed street violence. I think it behooves all of us to pay very careful attention to the media in this regard as well as Obama himself. Recall the days of the campaign and early days of Obama's administration when SEIU surrounded the homes of CEOs. Or, when there was violence by SEIU thugs against Opposition voters at Town Halls. These are the issues that will really matter so pay heed.
Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:03AM
"A Jobless recovery is not a recovery. " - something I think we all learned from the Bush years, which was the same.... he just didn't have as deep a hole to climb out of as he left Obama....
George True| 12.23.10 @ 10:43AM
Specifically, what legislation did George W. Bush sign into law or veto, that caused the economic meltdown of 2007-2008?
D. Taggart| 12.23.10 @ 11:51AM
How many trillions have been spent? How many millions of jobs lost? Maybe Obeyme should just take credit for "saving" 100 million jobs. (Assuming there will still be over 100 million people working by 2012.)
Obeyme is demonstrating the failure of central planning quite well. Putting a socialist in charge of a capitalist economy is like hiring an arsonist as your interior decorator.
Redstateboy| 12.24.10 @ 2:12PM
(wistfully...) ah the days when unemployment was 4.5%.. there were jobs.. and America wasn't a laughing stock to our enemies. then came Hussein, serviced by fools like purpleguy
winterhawk| 12.23.10 @ 7:59AM
He is still on the ropes. His so called "victories" during the lame duck are nothing more than "appeasement" for areas of his base. When the new Congress is seated we will see his "back to the same old" return. He is, in fact, a failure to the majority of this Nation. He is, in fact, a socialist that the majority of this nation does not want. But for the fact that he had control of Congress, none of this take down of our society would have occurred. Again, he is a failure.
Ron| 12.23.10 @ 7:24PM
By only extending the tax cuts for two years, Obama has placed himself in the position of running for re-election while pushing tax increases. He should have agreed to a one year extension or three year extension so that his desire for higher taxes would not be an issue during an election campaign.
Our highly educated but lacking real-life skills president had better curb his spending and government expansion desires and start taking steps popular with the populace, not just the progressives, if he expects to be a two-term president. I will not vote for him, but then I did not vote for him in '08 either.
carnot| 12.26.10 @ 11:19PM
Our erstwhile President's EPA is about to bypass Congress and mandate carbon emissions standards. Let's see how the Repubs respond to this.
Wayne | 12.23.10 @ 8:22AM
Disagree completely! It was a TOTAL win for Obama. So he only had to accept Bush tax cuts for two years. Big Deal! Small price to pay for complete compitulation by the GOP.
1. Tax Cuts - NO TAX CUTS and more SPENDING.
2. Omnibus - just really a mole hill. He has his money.
3. DADT - Will go down as the worst bill in the lame duck.
4. Start Treaty - Republicans did what the Nobel committee could not do, give Obama credibility. The Russian's see it as NOT allowing the US to build its missile defense, even against North Korea, so Obama WILL NOT so as not to upset the Russians, and this author bought it hook, line and sinker.
5. The Dream Act. The Dems got what they wanted - The Hispanics getting riled up against the GOP>
6. Nanny State, Michele Obama legislation to only make the government MORE intrusive,
7. The Food Act, More Government intrusive.
There was NOTHING good about this lame duck. And the GOP just merrily go along. We must drive another 12 GOP senators right out of office.
Joe Oliva| 12.23.10 @ 9:30AM
Excellent read Wayne!
Wayne | 12.23.10 @ 1:29PM
If we learned one thing, it is not to confuse GOP with Conservative. Notice who is now happy: Obama and Putin. We have been had and once again it was by the GOP. It makes me a skeptic about 2011, despite all these attempts to gloss things over.
Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:06AM
Yes, it was a complete victory for Obama. He won, the Republicans caved, and the country is better for it.....
George True| 12.23.10 @ 10:45AM
Exactly how is the country better for it? Specifics?
Virginia| 12.23.10 @ 8:33AM
What we have seen in the last few weeks of the 111th Congress may be a blue print for future unpopular administrations who control Congress.
Stack all your unpopular legislative programs into a lame duck session when those members who have been defeated are uninvested in the outcome of legislation and using the ticking clock as an ally carefully schedule the vote activity. It worked with the obama care and it has worked again with the recently ended Congressional session.
Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:08AM
Seems to me there's a long list of continuing Senators and Congressmen who voted for this wondrous package of winning legislation for Obama. What defeated members are you talking about? Free to vote their conscience - yeah, probably - and THAT is best for America, not some political hacks controlling America's future.
George True| 12.23.10 @ 10:49AM
Politicians are always, at any time, free to "vote their conscience". In any case, I see very little that was passed that in any way is truly in the best interests of the country as a whole, or in the best interest of most of us as individuals.
Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 3:41PM
Try .. haaarrrdddeeerrrr....
George True| 12.23.10 @ 6:30PM
And you should try making sense for a change.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.23.10 @ 8:36AM
The lame duck session, like so many previous sessions, was dominated by a triumph of the RINO's who most likely just took their last run in the public eye.
The new Senators about to be seated on January 3rd, will change the balance of power in the U.S. Senate. If the public is lucky the constant raids on the U.S. Treasury are over.
The only thing obvious at this point is that the current Congress didn't understand the rug was pulled out from under them by the majority of voters, or maybe the members did and they decided to help pass bad legislation just for bragging rights.
One things for sure, the evil triumvirate of Collins, Snowe and Brown has seen their last days of being socialist enablers. The new Senators will render them useless, more useless then they are already.
With the exception of the tax bill, the legislation was questionable at best. The DADT correct a Clinton policy which most likely not be able to be used as a Democratic triumph, since it correct a policy promulgated by Democrats.
The First Responder bill was nothing but a massive payoff to New York and the Republicans continue to prove they are the stupid party by going along with it. How many more hand outs to specialized groups will now arise? There are many first responders around the country, and the New Yorkers had already received massive payouts just after 9/11. The fact that the bill has a 5 year shelf life shows that they will come back for more.
The only significant progress made was the 2% cut in the payroll tax. Call it a step in the right direction. When it comes up for renewal the Republicans need to make sure the public gets to invest that portion in an investment fund. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a horrible lifetime investment. It's amazing how many citizens don't understand the relationship between misguided government policies and their financial difficulties.
The new Congress will see a shift to the right and hopefully, massive spending cuts in many agencies.
Here's a Christmas wish list for those who need suggestions.
Department of Energy: Has never produced a drop of energy, stands in the way of energy production and has a budget of 43 billion. Should be closed for repairs.
EPA: An agency full of nutty leftists who have driven 50 million jobs out of America. They should have their budget cut in half, and be tasked only with cleaning the environment. Their regulatory authority should be stripped.
SEC: Another worthless organization where employees surfed porn while Madoff scammed billions. Close for repairs.
NRC: Stands in the way of nuclear energy development and should be closed and replaced with an entire new group who will implement nuclear energy. Look to France for a model. When the French are doing it better then you, you've failed.
These are only a few suggestions. The Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Indian Affairs are both outdated agencies with bloated budgets and have lived past their usefulness.
One final fact. This Congress authorized the expenditure of more money then all other Congresses combined. And where's the shame? They apparently feel they did a good job.
The Congress needs to hire outside private contractors to look over their entire operation. Then they need to bite the bullet and lead the way. There is largess and bloat in Congressional operations and nothing should be off the table.
In the meantime don't forget to e-mail the White House and wish them a Merry Christmas. Believe it, they hate that.
Ross Kaminsky | 12.23.10 @ 9:40AM
Bill,
Of course I mostly agree with you.
One nit to pick: The cut in the payroll tax is not as good as it seems because it was stupidly only given to the employee, not the employer. It will not be any more stimulative than the first Bush "tax rebates" were; almost all the money went to pay down debt. And because it doesn't lower cost of employment, it won't improve the unemployment rate. One could argue that the 2% cut would allow workers to work for maybe 1% less, with the employers gaining the other 1% in the form of a lower salary. But there's no way that sort of adjustment could happen in a year, which is the expected duration of this provision.
Finally, while I love tax cuts, I don't love the idea of cutting revenue without cutting spending. The Social Security unfunded liability is simply increased by this measure. The one way this could work out well is if it's a step toward a broader reform of Social Security (and Medicare).
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.23.10 @ 10:04AM
Oh, I thoroughly agree with you that revenue and spending should be tied in an absolute manner. I wasn't implying that tax cuts as stand alone are even the best way to go. I hope the Republicans have a well thought out strategy to cut inefficient spending throughout government. Simple policy changes can be better for the public and the economy in the sense that some policies are secret tax hikes by the unelected. Emission and energy policies are a perfect example of that type of inefficient edict.
My thought is that the Republicans need to establish a commission staffed with private sector CEOs and let them review the entire government. It's no secret it's bloated and is suffering the organizational equivalent of a patient in need of a triple bypass.
If you look at the makeup of the Fiscal Commission they are all recycled political hacks with little ambition to cut spending, merely raise taxes, and offer minuscule and meaningless spending cuts.
I agree that the 2% cut won't be stimulative, in the sense that nothing the government ever does stimulates, it only confiscates or restricts free market action.
My only point was that perhaps it well lead to real reform of a confiscatory Ponzi ridden scheme which is a prime example of failed central economic planning.
You have the best point, that the employer is still footing the bill for about half of this nonsense.
There has never been a better opportunity to reform the whole plan by letting people voluntarily enter a government mandated payroll savings plan.
Frankly, I was astounded that everyone agreed to the 2% reduction. It's significant because it touches Social Security.
In the meantime I thoroughly enjoy your articles and look forward to many more.
Occam's Tool| 12.23.10 @ 11:30AM
Dear Ross: I think we can count on Barack to continue with his tone deafness next year. I think this lame duck session was a "dead cat" bounce. He just fundamentally does NOT get it.
By the way, Happy New Year. You write wonderful stuff.
Ross Kaminsky | 12.23.10 @ 12:46PM
Occam,
Thanks for the compliment!
As for the "dead cat" bounce, I agree with you. I think that was the point I was trying to make, but with a different metaphor.
Have a great Xmas (or I hope you had a happy Hanukkah if you're of my tribe) and a happy, healthy and prosperous 2011. (And of course, I wish the same to all my readers!)
RCV| 12.24.10 @ 12:30PM
Occam, I think you'll be surprised at how much Obama does get it. His legislative successes this month on the tax deal, DADT, StartII, are not accidental nor a dead cat bounce. He has shown a steady determination and a willingness to play for the long game. I am very much convinced that by the end of the next two years, he will either have a solid string of bipartisan compromises, or he will manage to make the new forces in the GOP to look like obstructionists. We'll see.
George True| 12.24.10 @ 1:44PM
Actually, what I think is more likely to happen is that the GOP house will rein in spending, causing the economy to improve at least somewhat, and Obama will claim the credit for it. Very much like when the GOP congress reformed welfare in the 1990's over the Dems (and Clinton's) dead bodies, and then Clinton got the credit for it.
Also, if BHO sees that the re-extension of the Bush tax cuts is going to happen in 2012 no matter what, he may very well come out in favor of it in order to give the (false) impression that he is a champion of lower taxes going into the 20012 election.
RCV| 12.24.10 @ 4:37PM
That is very much part of what will likely happen.
Redstateboy| 12.24.10 @ 2:15PM
got one question for ya......
WHERE ARE THE JOBS MORON??!!
RCV| 12.24.10 @ 4:38PM
Remember, government doesn't create jobs.
carnot| 12.26.10 @ 11:26PM
true...but government can give them away!
JP| 12.23.10 @ 8:46AM
These set of "victories" were only possible because of extraordinary political actions by Pelosi and Reid, and continued temitry by Senate Republicans. The repeal of DADT was niether needed, nor demanded by the public. A small, well connected, well funded group of gay activists pushed hard for this. And the events of surrounding the START treaty were just plain weird. Never before (not even with Clinton) did we subject our national security to such political endgames. No one in either party (outside of the 29 Republicans who voted no to START) acted with any kind of seriousness. It was all politics, political posturing, and grand-standing.
However, reality is on our door step. For the growing list of Senate RINOS, let this last week be a warning. President Obama is becoming toxic outside of the Beltway. ObamaCare is slowing creeping into the voter's lives in unpleasent ways; the defecit is sending long term bonds rates through the roof (short term interest rates will have to rise sometime), and there is currently a run on commodities due to the weak dollar and financial uncertainty. Food and energy prices will become a big topic in 2011 and 2012. And all three of these issues have Obama and the Dems written all over them. Don't allow the happy talk coming out of the Beltway and Wall St fool you. For those Republicans who are in thrall to Obama, your careers may just get cut short. The voters aren't fools.
Derek Leaberry| 12.23.10 @ 9:40AM
McConnell and Boehner should have held the tax bill hostage in order to prevent a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don'tTell" and the additional spending. But they bungled that.
Jackson Hole| 12.23.10 @ 9:41AM
So what did ya' expect? A bunch of RINOs who would bend and stoop to the will of the Tea Party? Let's face it. Tea Partiers, you couldn't pull a greasy string out of a cat's a$$. While you strut and preen, the real RINO Republicans are out there doing shady deals with the Democrats and getting the job done-drivin' this country down the path of no return. A new Republican? All he has to do is spew a few words about a balance budget, cutting taxes, and presto chango, you're supporting 'em. Then comes his election and the rest is hisory. Face it Tea Partiers, you've been relegated to the sub-section, appendem, of history. The RINOs are the ones making history.
Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:13AM
I believe you're right - with the Democrats, RINOs will make history for America - just not the history you want. Oh well, go have some tea.
George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:00AM
Instead of spouting platitudes and talking points, I wish that just once, you would engage in a serious discussion about the issues, stating specifically why you support/oppose the passage of any given piece of legislation. That is what the comments section is for, not to disrupt the meaningful exchange if ideas. It would be so refreshing. Just for a change. You know?
JeffW| 12.23.10 @ 11:13AM
Give it up George, Your outclassing PG. 6 times you have responded (so far) and 6 times he has not even tried to present a case. Just meaningless drivel. I applaud your actions but getting PG to respond in a meaningful way is like wrestling a pig. You both get dirty and only the pig enjoys it.
Occam's Tool| 12.23.10 @ 11:31AM
George, purpleguy is just like that annoying jerk who can't walk in step. I appreciate your heroic efforts. Happy New Year!
Tim the Enchanter| 12.23.10 @ 11:50AM
George: look up the definition of "Troll". Purpleguy's picture is next to it. They also used the same picture for their definition of a**h**e.
Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 3:44PM
Name an issue instead of asking me to give you one... And, instead of whining about me, why don't you actually pick and issue and discuss it intelligently ? Layout what you think is wrong and how you would right it and we have something to discuss.
The fact that many on here on are whiny about the lame duck Congress and Republicans caving doesn't engage me much....
George True| 12.23.10 @ 6:34PM
Okay, I'll bite. Specifically, what is it about the START treaty that you think was a good idea and why? If it was so important to pass it, why didn't the Dems have an open debate and a vote on it earlier this year?
Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 10:55PM
START Treaty - okay
1) Reduction of nuclear warheads by America AND Russia reduces the possibility of accidental launch
2) Billions for modernization of the nuclear stockpile, which is approaching 60 years and more. Again, extreme reduction in the possibility of accidental launch with old hardware and obsolete systems
3) Re-introduction of inspectors into Russia to oversee and strengthen security around the "loose" nuclear material in Russia so that material doesn't somehow make it's way to rogue nations or terrorists
4) Diplomatically, it offers to the Russians something they want, and in return, although not a commitment, enlisting the Russians to put more pressure on the Iranians to stop their nuclear ambition.
5) Ultimately, the 2 main nuclear powers, who hold 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world, shows by example, their willingness to the rest of the world to stand down the nuclear threat and eventually bring Ronald Reagan's dream of a nuclear-free world - a dream also held by Obama - to fruition.
I'm sure there's more, but that's what I got off the top of my head. Any questions?
carnot| 12.26.10 @ 11:33PM
except that
- the Russians are assisting the Iranians
- the Russians have no wedge against N. Korea...the latest in a long list of mangled foreign policy initiatives
- the Russians have no wedge in Pakistan
- the Iranians are talking to the Venezuelans about missile delivery systems
we gave away the ability to defend ourselves in a world of expanding proliferation - something Obama's admin has been singularly inept at preventing
dw| 12.23.10 @ 7:24PM
And if the health care bill is so great why was it passed along strict party lines in the dead of night just before Christmas? And why would the Speaker of the House tell us that to know whats in it we would have to read it...all 2000+ pages of it.
George True| 12.24.10 @ 1:47PM
Well, purpleguy.......we're waiting.
Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 10:56PM
Okay, your turn - tell me what's wrong with my list of benefits to this country for ratifying the START treaty. Notice I said nothing about the being a signature foreign policy triumph by the President, altho it is that.
George True| 12.26.10 @ 9:03PM
There's nothing wrong with your list, assuming each item is actually true. Some would say they are not.
1) As I understand the treaty, it requires the US to reduce a far greater number of warheads than Russia. It also enjoins the US from further developing a missile shield. This is a problem because Russia is not who we might need a missile shield against anyway. Also, I don't see what numbers of warheads has to do with a possible accidental launch, which has always been an impossibility (for the US anyway).
2) We were planning to modernize our nuclear weapons anyway, regardless of START. And again, this has nothing to do with a accidental launch, which is an impossibility. Perhaps you mean an accidental leak or detonation of a warhead in its silo due to age related deterioration?
3) No argument with inspection and verification, assuming it works as advertised.
4) Why give them something they want when we get little or nothing in return? I don't see much of anything in the treaty that we actually got from them that we didn't already have. And there will be little or no real "pressure" on Iran from Russia.
5) Showing our "willingness" to reduce numbers of nuclear weapons will have no influence whatsoever on our potential adversaries such as Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, other to make them laugh at us even more than they do now.
So some might see the same treaty and come to a much different conclusion. But guess what? We are now having an actual conversation in which we are exchanging ideas and discussing the various aspects of an issue.. I like it. Hopefully you do too.
dw| 12.23.10 @ 7:46PM
"The liberal mindset is occupied by a world of isolated platitudes and it is a world no bigger than their brain mass. They are unable to reach beyond their immediate enviorment, so they form global opinion based on the percieved injustices suffered at the hands of their elementary school classmates and immediate family members. It is a selfish attitude of personal victimization that influences their world veiw."
O.D. Harrisson
TarponGman| 12.24.10 @ 10:01AM
@ Jackson Hole and 'PurpleGuy'.
Why do you libs have to be so vulgar and crass? Your kooky views aside, it turns my stomach to read your filthy, pointless rants. Step away from the keyboard in your mommy's basement, put some clothes on and go buy a thesaurus.
Purpleguy| 12.25.10 @ 1:48PM
I don't use filthy language ...
Redstateboy| 12.24.10 @ 2:18PM
Asking a Liber-ul like PG for specific facts and details reminds me of the ole Chinese Proverb: "Man who stand on side of Mountain with mouth open waiting for Roast Duck to fly in have long wait."
carnot| 12.26.10 @ 11:39PM
purple's MO is to pass off broad generalizations as received truth.
he's here to spin anyway...so who cares? the real point is what each of us does within our respective sphere's of influence. what the military these days calls "self synchronization" is happening in the electorate....just get the info out...with a little nudge now and then. the process has already started.
Ross Kaminsky | 12.23.10 @ 12:49PM
Jackson Hole,
I think you're quite wrong about the Tea Party movement.
Lindsey Graham's comments the other day are a perfect example of the way the Tea Party can force RINOs to act right (double meaning intended).
Check my blog note on my site:
http://rossputin.com/blog/inde.....e-too-soft
Furthermore, I disagree that Tea Party activists are or were easily swayed by just a few pretty words. To the extent they were, they will have learned a lot in 2010 and will be unlikely to make many of those same mistakes in 2012.
Jackson Hole| 12.23.10 @ 2:42PM
Force? The Tea Party has very little force. Lindsey Grahamnesty is a milk-toast RINO Republican, and can't do a lick of good. But he's all the Republicans have. And he'll keep his seat, mark my words, Tea Party, Democrats, or otherwise. Why should SC elect a certified conservative Republican? They've got a luke piss warm man representing them. And to think, I supported them when they fired on Sumter.
Ross Kaminsky | 12.24.10 @ 10:25AM
Jackson,
I have two words for you: Nikki Haley
Clint| 12.24.10 @ 5:07PM
Duuuuhhh, Jack's Hole !
The Tea Party Candidates aren't seated & voting yet.
The 112th Congress is seated on January 3rd,2011 Buffoon.
martin j smith| 12.23.10 @ 10:10AM
From a poliotical point of view ( not ideological ) it was smart to deal with Obama because first of all the Tax deal ( no raising taxes was) was very popular. I am not sure that an advantage would have been gained by holding it hostage. Another political pitfall was the extended unemployment. Many who voted against Obama and the Socialists are not ideological as many posters are. They look in the pocket book and count their change. There is sympathy out there for the unemployed and so I say, at least a temporary help was not a politically terrible thing. But, the S will hit the F when the new congress comes in. Mark my words, there will be poltical warfare. I am hoping some of the guys give the D Socialists as good as they get and ram home the truth to the American People. This is what is hopeful and that means targeting RINOS as well !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
buckeyeman| 12.23.10 @ 11:02AM
What is the next battle? Insolvency of multiple states. What is the solution? Bailouts by the other states (ie the federal gubmint). Who will support having (marginally) more sensible states bailing out states whose fiscal and social policies amount to insanity? All democrats and many, many republicans. What will the result be? Further decline and possible collapse of the US economy. Who will rejoice? Purpleguy
Deborah D | 12.23.10 @ 2:59PM
David Skeel had a great column on giving states a way to go bankrupt. I would post the link, but it appears to be broken. I did blog on it a couple of weeks ago. Here's the link if you have an interest. The Republicans should jump on this right away! http://politicallyempowered.wo.....-bankrupt/
Purpleguy| 12.25.10 @ 1:56PM
If your Republican friends hadn't put is in the deficit hole we're in since Ronald Reagan did it, we wouldn't be where we are today. Democrats didn't do that, despite the propaganda from the right. The only surplus this country has had was during Bill Clinton's time and the deficit this year is less than GW Bush's last year, so it's coming down.
Republicans scream about spending by the Democrats, but the Democrats find a way to pay for what they spend, unless Republicans stand in the way of raising the revenue. Republicans, on the other hand, spend it and just say "Charge It" , deficits don't matter - they've been saying that since Reagan's days. They only become "fiscally conservative" when Democrats are in control. Just like in the Omnibus bill they railed against - Republicans had earmarks up the wazoo in there, hypocrites that they are. (John Thune and John Cornyn, Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell, to name a few - check it out) If you haven't seen enuf alread, you'll see in the House now.
If you read actual facts, instead of the right-wing spin, you could figure it out.
Soooo, Purpleguy will not be happy to see the country bankrupt (which is a stupid thing to say anyway) , but you can blame your "R" buddies for it.
Wayne | 12.26.10 @ 2:29PM
Democrats didn't put us into the deficit hole? Are you kidding me? Democrats VOTED for the Iraq war. Democrats VOTED for the Medicare drug bill. Democrats controlled Congress in 2007 when the Recession began, and were there when the unemployment rate dropped from 5 percent to 10 percent. The Recession was a result of the Prime market Housing crash. A crash brought about by the Democrats using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide disastrous loans to people who could not or would not pay them back.
While the fiscal conservatives are trimming the GOP ranks of RINOS, what are the Democratic left wing doing? They are pitching for MORE taxes and a BIGGER government.
Sorry nobody is buying what you are pitching.
George True| 12.26.10 @ 8:31PM
Purp, now you are making up your own "facts". Clinton did not in any create the surplus that he was lucky enough to inherit in the earlier years of his administration. Those surpluses were created by the longest economic boom in postwar history as a result of...wait for it...the Reagan tax cuts.
"The deficit this year is less than GW Bush's last year."
Where in the world did you get this idea? The highest deficit in any given year under Bush was $460 billion. In his entire eight years, the cumulative deficit was about $1.8 trillion. Under Obama, the deficit in FY 2009 o alone was $1.5 trillion, or about $200 billion less than Bush's entire term. The deficit under Obama for FY 2010 was $1.4 trillion, and is projected to be $1.4-$1.5 trillion again in FY 2011. These are OMB's figures.
You are so locked into defending the leftist/collectivist ideology that you can't even accept the reality and the enormity of how much Obama has spent. I mean really, Bush was mercilessly vilified by the left for spending like a drunken sailor. Obama campaigned on that. And so the solution to that is to spend three or four times as much??? You can't have it both ways, which is what you are trying to do.
"democrats find a way to pay for what they spend."
Not really. They talk a good game, as in pay/go, but they have never actually walked the walk. And what you refer to as "raising revenue" is just a euphemism for squeezing and extorting more and more taxes out of an already overtaxed electorate.
If you would read actual facts, instead of the left-wing spin, you might know some of these things. We have had this conversation already in this very thread. You are not interested in learning anything. You only want to go run and Google something to come up with the requisite "factoids" to support your pre-conceived conclusion. How about just searching for the actual truth for a change??
Many of us here have gone through an evolution over decades of time where what we thought we knew proved not to be so. We evolved because we were willing to change our conclusions based on new evidence. I see no evidence of such a thought process on your part. You just want to be able to say, "Neener, neener, I'm right and you're all wrong." Regardless of whether or not yo actually are right.
davelnaf| 12.23.10 @ 11:38AM
Whenever Americans get scammed by a presidential candidate's promises to put in a set of fixes for things they care most about, but later reneges on his promises (as Bush did), there had better be some mitigating circumstance, or set of mitigating circumstances, to offset the negatives this creates. In Bush’s case it was a fairly good economy continuing for years after its 9/11 rattling and the nominal success of the war in Iraq. But after their monumental scamming by Obama in ’08 a disgruntled majority saw no mitigating circumstances in his two years’ worth of policy choices to offset the far greater negatives they created.
Despite his broken promises (to do something about the border, reign in government spending), Bush at times governed fairly close to the center. Obama’s fakes to the same over the next two years will convince only the already convinced.
martin j smith| 12.23.10 @ 12:18PM
Davelnaf: I concurr. The voters on onto Obama and his BS will not fly. Its about JOBS in the private sector, its about the deficit. its about our national security. People see that. O can run anyway he wants but unless the numbers work, such as employment being up a lot, the voters will not buy it.
Dave Williams| 12.23.10 @ 1:48PM
Join me, fellow AmSpec readers, in giving a hearty shout out to George True, for nailing PurpleTroll's sorry lies and regurgitated talking points to the wall, time and time again. I don't know how you do it, sir, but I tip my hat to you. Carry on.
George True| 12.23.10 @ 6:35PM
Thanks, Dave.
George S| 12.23.10 @ 2:15PM
Victories are either tactical or strategic. The tax cut extensions, DADT, et al, are tactical; what really counts is the overall strategical. Remember the TSA pat-down fiasco of not only a month ago? Has that stopped or have we accepted it and moved along? That's a strategic victory for the statists. How easy will it be to repeal Obamacare once pre-existing conditions are covered? Not a chance... and that will be the ultimate strategic victory for leftists as we become wards of the state. It is much more than Obama's 2012 chances that are at stake. A lot more.
Jackson Hole| 12.23.10 @ 2:33PM
Obumer's rep is not at stake. The latest lameduck session has proven-He is da come back kid. He'll juke, he'll jive, and he'll land the knock out in the 10th round, jest when ya thought you had him on da ropes. He keeps knocking 'em out, ya can't stop him. Float like a bee, sting like a butterfly. He's the Chosen One, the King, and de Maker of Men. All the rest of you guys are has beens. He's made of steel, can chew nails and spit bullets. What a man!! Obumer, my man!!!
Clint| 12.23.10 @ 5:50PM
That's a Whole Butt Load of Trash Talkin' Jack's Hole.
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13.
For the first time in ten months, the number who Strongly Disapprove of the president has remained below the 40% level for four straight days. "
Sonny| 12.23.10 @ 9:48PM
Political Pundits, not to mention all the Obamacrats, keep on tooting Obama's Horn, for all of his amazing accomplishments.. After 2 years of focusing, like a laser on non-economic growth, govt. takeover and control of the Whole Nation's Private, as well as Public sectors, now Obama is saying, OK, he will now focus on the economy, again.. please, who does he think he's fooling... and who's side are these political pudits on, the American Independent Constitutional Republic and the Patriotic American People, or Obama's Anti-American Nationalist Socialist Marxist Regime...
The American People are on the verge of losing every Freedom, Right, Liberty, and Voice in America, let alone America's Safety and Security, and all you can do is tout Obama's accomplishments, towards his end goal.
Will all these Political Pundits and Obamacrats, keep patting Obama on the back, when America lay in ruins, and ashes, and Obama has said, "Mission Accomplished"..
PCP Smoker| 12.23.10 @ 11:09PM
Head in the sand analysis, eh? The reason those items did not get passed under a Democrat majority is because they reek of liberalism. Rinos and bitter losers provided the left with cover. Fuck the Rinos. Tennessee needs to get on the ball and primary those two assholes. Maine too.
dance...dance to the radio| 12.24.10 @ 1:57AM
I think Obama is toast.
Say all you want about a lame duck victory.
It's a lame duck.
And Palin can run her reality TV thing all she wants.
Fact is she quit politics to focus on the money.
Despite what he says, I truly believe that Chris Christie will be the next POTUS.
He's the new Reagan.
martin j smith| 12.24.10 @ 8:12AM
In 2012 if the eunemployment levels are still + or - 10% Obama is toast. If the employment numbers improve and he talks about raising taxes, he is toast,
if gasoline prices go up and efforts to increase our productivity are shot down by Obama, he is toast,
if food prices go up along with other necessities and he talks about taxation, he is toast,if real estate taxes continue to rise to pay for Government Pensions , Obama is toast. If G-d forbid there is a serious terrorist attack and Obama fails to act in an effective manner, he will be impeached !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And, as for purple guy: He comes from another universe far from the milky way.
It is so far out
no one knows where, no one can even say
Purple is getting paid, how much I cannot count.
But whatever it is , it is too much because our debt will mount.
Louis Jenkins| 12.24.10 @ 9:54AM
So Martin, I believe Obama will be toast. Too many factors not to happen.
martin j smith| 12.24.10 @ 10:36AM
If none of these factors occur then Obama will alinate his base but win the praises of most Americans. If he becomes a real patriot( ha ha ) well good for him. I will support him in this case. But, if you believe otherwise then you think we are fools which we are not !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh and by the way, if he does other than those matters I listed above to make him toast, he can become French Toast and join the Tea party. Welcome aboard Barak and you too LJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jim| 12.24.10 @ 10:39AM
I predict Obama will get everything he wants for the next two years. I predict he will be re-elected in 2012 for another four years. He will then address the nation telling us all that he has the mandate to "transform America" and he will. How? The Republicans will do nothing to stop him. Rebublicans will whine, stamp their feet, hold their breath and then capitulate to Obama. The Republican leadership are incapable of doing anything in opposition because deep down they agree with Obama. They are interested only in power for themselves and telling the American rabble that they are incapable of ruling themselves. Republicans will bleed this country into collapse not like Democrats who go right to the artery but by death by a thousand cuts.
martin j smith| 12.24.10 @ 11:20AM
Jim, if you really feel that way then why not pack your bags and look for better climes. I for one do not share you view. I am at least willing to give the Tea Party and their followers an opportunity to act.
I do agree that there are predictable people in the Repubs Party that will act against the voters--we know who they are. But, there are others who will not. I for one believe it will take a great deal of will and courage to stand up to the nay sayers and deal makers. So lets see who has it and who does not. A small group in the Senate can make a lot of noise and of course in the House as well Repubs have a good majority. So, unless Obama does something really dramatic which I do not expect I think there will be political sparks flying and it could be very interesting. That is my take.
I would also say as I have said above unless Obama turns things around in the economy and protects our nation against terrorists etc. He will not win. And, those repubs who are essentially Socialists will get their cumupance --things do take time and one must have some patience. I hope that word is in our vocabulary.
Jim| 12.24.10 @ 11:57AM
I hope you are correct but how much more patience should people have that the Repbulicans will get it. Did not the Republican establishment support the non-tea party candidates or half-heartedly support the tea party candidates in Delaware, Alaska or Kentucky? In order to have change the Republicans must have the will to change. This lame duck session shows me that they do not. They are not going to change they will fold and give in to everything and call it the normal way you do business in Washington.
I truly hope I am wrong. No other place to go America is the last best hope for all. It is sad to see it turned into a 3rd rate banana republic lead by a bunch of out of touch elites.
Bob| 12.24.10 @ 11:49AM
The country hangs on by a thread. I think everyone is anxious and hopeful about the upcoming Congress. But our loss of liberty has been occurring for over 100 years. Whenever a large segment of the population can vote for an increase in benefits, the country is lost. Why would they not do so? What argument is convincing enough to persuade them to work hard for years in a bad economy? Unless the incoming Congress is very aggressive and very successful and we are very lucky, we can only look forward to collapse and hopefully have enough left to rebuild.
martin j smith| 12.24.10 @ 12:29PM
You know the Tea party Movement is very young --very new compared to the two otherPolitcal Parties. The TPM is not yet a political Party. But, I think it has gained traction and I have faith that there will be among the new comers those that will take on the "old guard" and the Socialists in sheep's clothing. We as voters must full the lines of communication with such furry when necessary that it will be hard to ignore. It might also take street protests of a very large scale and this could occur too. But the most important thing to bear in mind is persistence. Unlike terrorists, who are willing to blow themselves up for the right to live in the Dark Ages, we have to write,phone, or walk carrying banners to show we are in the game. I think persistence,patience and overcoming obstacles should be the way to look at the situation. Its an opportunity--not give up at the slightest sign of surrender by the usual suspects. I would add this: We will have a vast majority if the focus is on the economy and related national security issues. People of many different views want stability, want to live well, and want to have government that is benevolent
not oppressive. most of all they want honest leadership which we are still lacking on the Repub side and totally lacking on the Socialist D side.
George True| 12.24.10 @ 1:50PM
Well said, Martin. Hear, hear!
Mojo Risin| 12.24.10 @ 2:41PM
You've got to wonder why the republican legislators who defect, (vote democrat) why do they do it? Is it to retain their jobs? Do they need a job that bad and if they do, why not just run as democrats? And if someone needs a job and if retention is such a priority, politics shouldn't be a vocation choice, seeing as the dishonesty inherent with such choices. At this point, with the situation as bad as it is, with Obonehead seeming to control everything, why not, as an elected republican in opposition to Obonehead, just throw caution to the wind, don't help him destroy the country. What's there to loose, your job??? That would be more honorable than carrying water for Obonehead!!!
martin j smith| 12.24.10 @ 3:21PM
Mojo Risin: If you mean for repubs to get their cajonas and stand up for their ideas I agree. But the group you refer to must be politically,identified,isolated,besmearched,bothered and bewildered and then thrown out of office by the voters.
james| 12.24.10 @ 4:04PM
What is this crap? Off the ropes? Every one of these things was voted against by the population in November and will be added to the criminal charges they bring against this dreadful man in 2012.
Off the ropes? You gotta be kidding me. Here's a piece of reality no one wants to talk about, except me.
Obama has, and will have, virtually 100 percent support from black voters in 2012. If you back that out of his current polling position, you see that he has around 30 percent approval from everyone else. And that number is going to go down as soon as the last round of health care regualtions, released the other day, work their way into the public consciousness.
Off the ropes? Yes, and hanged with them.
martin j smith| 12.24.10 @ 4:51PM
Le t me say some words of Charles Krauthammer: I do not trust this guy at all. He is a guy who does not like the Conservative opposition, the Tea Partiers and is a bit too similar to David brooks and Frum in many ways. If he belives that Obama is "back" that is pure sophestry. Let me review my vioew of the"accomplishments:
Politcally the tax compromise was necessary supported by a majority of voters. The Omnibus spending and Dream Act went down. DaDt is one of those lets see what happens kind of situations . Will it function or not. Time will tell. Same with the Start treaty. Treatise are made to be broken anyway. The majority of American voters including those who voted AGAINST OBAMA AND THE SOCIALIST LEFT care about: Smaller Government,Jobs, and national security at least in so far as the deficit is concerned and our safety.
DaDt is NOT in many who voted against the Socialists a BIG issue or the prime motivating issue. It is the deficit and employm\ent,housing and other related issues that many of these voters are concerned about. Personally I think considering that the Democrat Socialist Party had them majorities till the bitter end, it was a miracle things did not get much worse. But this session will not boiost Obama- Charlie K is a dreamer or a
someone who is with the average voter--another Washington Beltway elitist--who needs him or them. So--Obama will have to show by 2012 that all of the issues of concern to the voter are being addressed. Otherwise-OUT!!!!!!!!!!!
Dan| 12.24.10 @ 6:07PM
Off the ropes? You have got to be kidding. Repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell: The country just can't wait to applaud him and Congress for allowing our military to become the home for unwanted homosexuals. Passage Of Obama Care: The longer it is out there the more people will see how bad it is for them. The Bush Tax Cuts: Obama approved only after the mid term election showed him who had the power.
Obama has nothing to run on that will make independents return to him, nor will there be White Guilt in 2012 and hopefully the Republicans will elect someone who looks alive.
Just imagine where Obama will try to take this country should he win in 2012 and can't have to run again. We will be in worse shape than Cuba.
A.C.Guard| 12.24.10 @ 7:19PM
You forgot to add the Start Treaty,of which the U.S. and Russia disagree on the meaning of preamble. How about 2 trillion dollars added to the deficit under Obama's watch. How about his bowing and badmouthing the U.S. tour of the world. Even worse may be his Justice Department and Big Sis. There is no end to what the Republicans can runout to defeat him. And this time he may not have Acorn to stuff ballot boxes.
Joe| 12.24.10 @ 7:32PM
How about our loss of freedoms, his Socialist agenda, his czars. Just too much to mention.
But I have little faith in the new Speaker,nor McConnell. Neither seems up to the task of giving the majority of voters what they want. The Republican candidate in 2012 must be able to withstand a hostile media and the congressional Rino's must be voted out of office.
Oldefarte| 12.25.10 @ 12:20PM
To [especially] Purple Puke and others, Barry S will be defeated in 2012, along with most of the Democrats and RINOS up for re-election. The active and passive tea partiers will continue and improve the job they started with the 11/2/10 elections, with the November 2012 purge. The taxpayer-voters have now seen El Chosen One and his band of domestic terrorists Democrats COME OUT OF THEIR LIBERAL CLOSETS and expose themselves completely [and they do not like what they have observed]. The lame duck congressional session was pure excrement, and the incoming wave of true conservatives on 1/1/11 will begin the political toilet flushing necessary to make both these Democrats' and RINOS' compromises nullified/voided through legislation. These now elected conservatives and 2012 ones to come will turn back the socialist agenda of the last half century and transform this country into its proper place of being a shining beacon on a hill. Rome was not built in a day, and this transformation/be-building will sadly take time and effort; but make no mistake.......IT WILL COME!!!!!!!!
Tom in Michigan| 12.25.10 @ 5:05PM
Obama's most impressive accomplishment was showing just how irrelevant Pelosi and Reid actually are and playing the Republicans as effectly as he did. Had he asserted himself against the obviously demented Pelosi and the oleaginous Reid in the first place, I seriously doubt the Democrats would have been "shellacked."
Republicans are the ones who shouldn't get over-confident. If Obama decides to give up the partying and get to work for the next two years (a fifty-fifty bet), they will have a real handful in 2012.
For my part though, "Party on, Barry."
Martin j smith| 12.26.10 @ 8:23AM
My final words on this topic. First of all let look at who talked about Obama's comback ( so to speak ) other than the MSM. Basically DaDt and the Start Treat are it. Besoides Charles K is he not they guy that railed against Tea party repubs who defeated RINOS. He like Carl Rove. I mean is he really the authority ( so to speak ) that should be the standard ? This entire topic is way too premature and it is driven by folks who have an axe to grind . As for Charles K and etc forget about him--as for me he has lost his creds long ago at least on political commentary of this type.
For Obama to come back as I and many other have said Obama would have to do a virtual 180.
I doubt it very much time will tell. What is more likely are more verbal BS and substance of change. He will offer saw dust as baite but keep hold of his Socialist agenda and Marxist ideology. In other words--DO NOT BELIEVE ONE WORD OF THIS GUY WITH OUT IRON CLAD PROOF BY ACTIONS.
AS FOR THOSE WHO POST WITH FIXATIONS OF THE GAY PEOPLE,ISSUE, BEHAVIOR ETC. THEY ARE EITHER FOOLS OR PHONEYS FOR ME. This is not a plus for Obama really- it is a payoff but in reality the real issue of Obama are government control. This is where the new congress comes into play. This is where the real battle will begin and its put up or shut time.
jim| 12.26.10 @ 5:27PM
Again, I will say that Obama will get what he wants without changing at all. The Rebublicans will willingly give him everything he demands. They will give lip service to ideals of individual freedom while piling up more government control through taxes and regulation. They do not disagree with Obama. They want the same thing they just say it differently. Again I predict Obama will get all he wants and more and will be re-elected in 2012. Rebublicans will not stop him.
carnot| 12.26.10 @ 11:49PM
you know...it is pretty amazing how intrusive the government has become in monitoring every public space (and in some instances...privates spaces!). sooner or later folks have to wake up and ask themselves "What the H is going on here?"...this isn't how I chose to live.
Dale Cord| 12.28.10 @ 1:55PM
2011 a year that will live in Infamy. Future school history books will read: The year the Muslims conquered the United States of America. With not so much as a whimper from its cowardly military leaders, and name calling armchair patriots. Disgraceful,Shameful there are no words to adequately describe her defeat. As the 300 Spartans strength and ingenuity conquered all of those who challenged them, so a small band of renegades conquered the greatest country the world has known. When Davids rock slued Goliath. It also foretold a warning. "The bigger they are,the harder they Fall." Our country lost its battle of survival when it became intoxicated with its deceptive mentality, that it did not need its Creator anymore, and wisdom no longer was apart of its citizens physiology to survive.
vip2020 | 12.28.10 @ 6:41PM
Thanks a lot for this article! I will surely visit your site again