The president and his team often whine about the bad set of circumstances the Democrat has had to deal with, you know all those problems they “inherited” (as if their was the first administration to face problems left unresolved by the previous president.)  The Democrat’s chief of staff put it recently, “Considering the debacle that he came in with, the tough choices he’s made and how there have been few, if any breaks, he says it himself all the time. . . .”

President Obama, as Jim Geraghty (who linked the quote above) reminds us:

. . . has been using the “run of bad luck” line on the stump, too. He cites the Arab Spring as an economic headwind, but let’s face it, Egypt or Libya or Syria or one of the Gulf states could have completely collapsed from internal uprisings. He mentions the tsunami in Japan, which as we all recall was so traumatic to the president he could only cope by going over his March Madness picks with ESPN. Yet obviously that could have been much worse, spreading much more serious radioactivity over more-densely populated areas of Japan. He cites the European debt crises, and again, it’s not hard to imagine that circumstance turning out much worse – such as a collapse of the Euro or serious social unrest in Greece and elsewhere.

Nothing is ever the fault of Obama and the team around him. It’s just that the universe seems to enjoy disappointing him, I guess.

Emphasis added.  Maybe the president wouldn’t be as upset with the universe if he took the advice of that politician who told Jay Leno that “one of the things” he was “trying to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.“

The president recently told a crowd of supporters that he had kept a majority of the promises he had made in the 2008 campaign:

“We’re through about 60 percent of [the list], which isn’t bad for three years,” Mr. Obama told a crowd at a fundraiser in Denver on Tuesday night. “So we know change is possible. But here’s the thing. There are a lot of people who are still hurting, and there’s still a lot more work to do. And so that other 40 percent that is not done, I’m going to need you because I need five more years. I need five more years to get it done.”

Politifact says that in fact he has kept only 151.  And how, pray tell, with a likely Republican Congress in 2013 (which we, alas, do not, Democratic talking points notwithstanding, enjoy today), will he ever get any of his big-government initiatives through?

Now, what about one promise that candidate Barack Obama himself claimed he’d been talking about “throughout” the 2008 campaign, you know, proposing a “net spending cut”?

He hasn’t put that in any of the budgets he’s proposed; indeed, every proposal he’s authored to “jump start” the economy has a included a net spending increase, oftentimes a pretty substantial such increase.

Well, if the president’s jobs bill enjoys majority support as the Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests, it isn’t helping his overall approval which, according to Gallup, just slipped to 38:

Seems his poll numbers are heading in the opposite direction of the Gipper’s in the third year of his term. Many pundits have claimed that Obama could win because his numbers this year were similar to Reagan’s in 1983. Only problem was that Reagan’s polls started ticking upwards as his economic plan kicked in. Obama’s plan was supposed to start working just a few months after it was passed (more than two years ago).

Maybe that’s because as Jim Hoft reports, “In Ronald Reagan’s third September in office he created 1.1 million jobs in one month.”  (By contrast, “Employers added 103,000 jobs in [Obama's third] September [in office]. Half of those were striking Verizon workers returning to work.”)

Well, technically, the Gipper didn’t create the jobs.  He just put policies in place which made it possible for entrepreneurs and businessmen to create and expand their enterprises, thus making it necessary for them to bring on more employees.

Wow.  This from Gallup today:

• 49% of Americans believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. In 2003, less than a third (30%) believed this.
• A record-high 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed, adding to negativity that has been building over the past 10 years.

Oh, there’s so much more…. read the whole thing.

Hey, someone should write more about this “Low Grade Civil War” thing!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In today’s WSJ.com’s Political Diary (available by subscription), Stephen Moore quips “The Laffer report on the two presidents”, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama “is aptly entitled ‘The Odd Couple.’ In this case Reagan would be Felix, because he cleaned up the mess; and Mr. Obama is more like Oscar, who leaves a bigger mess behind.”

Seems Democrats believe the incumbent can repeat the feat of the most successful domestic policy president of the 20th century and win reelection despite middling polls during his third year in office. Problem is is that the Gipper’s poll numbers steadily increased in 1983 while in the corresponding year of his term, Obama’s have drifted downward.

Moore is onto something when he talks about Obama having left a bigger mess behind [than the one he "inherited"]. One reason House Republicans haven’t been able to devote more time on conservative reforms is that they have had to clean up messes the previous Congress left behind, such as its failure to pass a budget and to increase the debt ceiling high enough to accommodate the spending increases it did pass.

In addition to the messes the last Democratic House left the current Republican one, there are the messes Obama will leave to his successor, including notably two of the “big” pieces of legislation he signed, the health care overhaul and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, each increasing federal control over our economy. Not to mention all the new regulations administration appointees have foisted on the private sector, particularly those imposed by the EPA.

The next president is going to have to devote the better part of his first year in office just cleaning up the messes the incumbent is making today.

Shortly after Bruce returned to blogging in June 2005, I found it uncanny how oftentimes he would post on topics that I had intended to post on, with a spin similar to that I intended to offer, but with a style that, well, a style that showed the difference between the two of us.

And then when I started blogging more often than he, oftentimes he would e-mail me thanking me for addressing a topic he had intended to address, oftentimes embedding the same video he wanted to embed or quoting the very column he sought to quote.

Today, I woke to find that Eric and Nick had respectively considered two of the issues about which I wanted to write today — though Nick approached the social issue question through Christine O’Donnell, I will (in my next post) be approaching it through the much and mercilessly maligned Michele Bachmann. Uncanny indeed!

As to Eric’s point, I was wondering if the president had any idea what his actual jobs approach would be. In the first two years of his term, he depended almost entirely on his party’s leadership in Congress to draft his key domestic initiatives.

Will his big speech just be another one of his big speeches, a lot of platitudes, emphasizing broad points, but providing no specifics? (more…)

Whoa. Jim Geraghty at NRO (and hopefully you’re subscribing to his newsletter like I do) offers the tidbit of the day from President Obama’s Twitter Town Hall yesterday (and Moe Lane provides the cued-up video):

We’re still gonna have to make some tough decisions about Defense spending, or even on programs that I like but we may not need.

Ladies and Gentlemen: I give you your Commander in Chief.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

While we know HRC’s Joe Solmonese endorsed Obama’s campaign so early to show just how besotted he and his associates are with the Democratic Party, we also wonder why the Democrat was so eager to secure the endorsement so early in the cycle.

Well, in Jim Geraghty’s piece on a teachers’ union similarly premature endorsement, we find an explanation:

Number-Cruncher writes in, “I’m under no illusion the NEA will ever endorse a Republican candidate…but why this early? There is no GOP candidate yet, wouldn’t the union membership best be served by at least giving the GOP candidate ‘a chance’ to hear out his or her proposals, thus trying to win the appeal on a bi-partisan manner? I can only think of one reason for this move, the Obama people are going into over drive to get as much into Obama’s coffers as possible, and thus asked for this explicitly.  These are action of a very desperate campaign…on both sides. The Obama administration obviously is not raising enough money; the NEA is losing friends on the Democrat side of the aisle (see Cuomo).”

Emphasis added.  It’s all about the money.  You know all the media bellyaching about the corrupting influence of special interests and campaign cash we here when Republican candidates and conservative organizations raise a lot of money to promote, respectively, themselves and their causes, wonder how much we’ll hear with all the Obama campaign’s shenanigans in order to increase its haul.

Do wonder if any intrepid reporters for the MSM, as part of a renewed commitment to accountability journalism, will investigate to see just how explicitly — and aggressively — the Obama campaign (and maybe the president himself) sought out these endorsements and their concomitant cash.

Contrasting New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie’s success at crafting a budget deal with legislative Democrats in his state, Jennifer Rubin speculates that it might be possible in Washington but for one thing:

The key ingredient missing in D.C., of course, is executive leadership. President Obama has ducked, delegated and demagogued. It is up to Senate and House leaders to forge a deal. And then to complete the task, the voters in 2012 will need to elect a president with the same fortitude and courage as Christie. Maybe Christie himself.

Emphasis addded.  Read the whole thing.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

One could say that of the many factors contributing to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008, perhaps the most important was that he came across as calm during the market meltdown in the midst of the presidential campaign while his Republican rival appeared erratic.  But, maybe his calm demeanor was not that of a leader showing he could keep his cool in a crisis, but a of man with little ability to show emotion, a man who was somewhat detached from his fellows and their difficulties.

As long as the difficulty doesn’t impact him personally, the president maintains his cool facade.

Sometimes, when he tours areas which just experienced a disaster, it appears he’s going through the motions, visiting the town and talking to the people not because he feels their pain (to borrow an expression of his most immediate Democratic predecessor who really could make it appear that he did), but because this is what a president does.  Or, perhaps, he’s just not as media savvy in such situations as was Bill Clinton.

But, then there’s this.  Just moments after honoring those who gave their all for our freedom on Memorial Day, he heads off for the golf course for yet another round.  I don’t begrudge him his leisure and grant every president should enjoy some recreation on his days off, but did Mr. Obama consider how it might appear if he headed off for the links on the day when we’re supposed to be honoring those who died in this nation’s service?  Maybe he just thinks the media will cover for him.*

These thoughts came to mind as I caught this post on Instapundit.  Glenn links a post on Powerline where John Hinderaker, commented on Michele Bachmann’s observation about the president’s apparent absence of empathy:

That Barack Obama is without a clue when it comes to the economy is no revelation, but that he lacks empathy–traditionally a Democratic refrain–is a bold and interesting twist. The fact is that Obama does often seem to be weirdly detached from the problems he ostensibly is trying to solve.

Read the whole thing.  When it comes to the economy, Obama doesn’t seem as engaged as he was during the push to overhaul our nation’s health care system.   (more…)

Seems that the secret to landing a plum job in the Obama Administration is quite similar to some of the strategies used in the city where the president cut his political teeth.

According to Politico:

More than two years after Obama took office vowing to banish “special interests” from his administration, nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings and social events, an investigation by iWatch News has found.

To wit:

Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the 24 ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised $500,000.

Via Instapundit.  Do wonder, to borrow an expression from David Axelrod, if this information will be scrutinized as much perhaps as Sarah Palin’s e-mails.

Tried to watch it, but found it, well, kind of dull.  His delivery seemed amazingly staccato, as if his heart weren’t in the address.

And did I hear him using Iraq as an example of what an Arab society could become if it did the right thing?  Wonder if he cited his predecessor for helping Iraq make the progress that it has.

In a poll “conducted after the death of Osama bin Laden“, Gallup found that

Given a choice between Barack Obama and an unnamed Republican, 43% of registered voters say they are more likely to vote for Obama and 40% are more likely to vote for the Republican. This is essentially unchanged from April and February, when voters’ preferences were evenly split.”

“Imagine,” Jennifer Rubin quips, linking the poll, “if a really exciting Republican decided to run.”

What is interesting is that while only 43% would vote to reelect a man who won the White House with just shy of 53% of the popular vote,

Gallup Daily tracking documented a six-point increase in Obama’s overall job approval rating in three-day rolling averages before and after the May 1 announcement, from 46% to 52%. His approval rating has since stayed above 50%.

So, we see a near 10-point gap between his job approval and his re-elect number.  Perhaps the higher approval reflects Americans expressing their momentary satisfaction with the president’s recent accomplishment.   Or it may well indicate something else that for whatever reason, people wish to tell the pollster they approve of the president, but don’t want to see him reelected.

When I followed the 2008 campaign on the television monitors at my gym, I had the sense the then-junior Senator from Illinois would go far.  Barack Obama came across well on TV.  And in today’s politics, that type of presence puts a candidate head and shoulders above the rest.

If you judged the president’s remarks last night on Libya not by his words, but by his appearance on television, well then, his speech on Libya last night was a failure.  I watched it while at the gym.  He seemed uncomfortable with this address, as if it were an unfortunate obligation of his profession, something that he had to do, but wanted to get over with it as quickly as possible.  His heart did not seem in it.

Glenn Reynolds who did see it offers a similar evaluation, “Eerily like a Bush speech, but without the conviction.”  While it may have sounded like a Bush speech, Ann Althouse noticed ”the implicit disrespect for George Bush:”

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone….

“When”, the diva asked, “did we act alone? Is he trying to make us misremember what Bush did?”  Not quite misremember, but instead remind us of the liberal talking point on Iraq, that W was a cowboy who went it alone when the facts (for those of us who remember them correctly) tell a much different story.

John Hinderaker also found the incumbent sniping at his predecessor by making a contrast which “made little sense“.  John offered the consensus view of speech’s conservative critics, that the president couldn’t “resist hedging his bets. Thus, tonight’s speech included a little bit of everything.”

In her excellent analysis of the speech, Jennifer Rubin notes that while Obama’s sentence, “the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear”, represents “the perfect encapsulation of Bush’s freedom agenda“, the incumbent “can’t bring himself to embrace the view of those conservatives, you know the ones who pushed to liberate Iraq.”

Victor Davis Hanson offers the best summation of the critiques I read: (more…)

According to Gallup, the president’s weekly job approval has taken a tumble:

President Barack Obama averaged 46% job approval the week of Feb. 28-March 6, his lowest weekly average since mid-December. Obama’s weekly approval rating had steadily improved from mid-December to late January, peaking at 50% during the final two weeks in January, before dropping below that mark in February. . . .

The seven-week period from mid-December through the end of January was the longest stretch Obama has had of stable or improving ratings. Prior to that, there were several periods when his ratings either held steady or improved four weeks in a row, including a stretch from April to May 2009 that saw his approval ratings improve by a total of five percentage points.

Compared with the final two weeks of January, when Obama averaged 50% overall approval, his recent drop in support has come mainly from Democrats and independents

.

Andrew Malcolm quips that the president’s numbers are down “even without a viable announced Republican opponent. Even with the unemployment rate down a smidge to 8.9% (it was 6.9% when Obama was elected). Even with 192,000 jobs created last month. Even with Joe Biden out of the country.”

His 2012 prospects can’t be that great when his approval ratings — at their highest — were only at 50.

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey looks at these numbers and toward the 2012 election:

A 46% approval rating isn’t exactly a number that guarantees re-election, but it’s not low enough to make it out of the question, either.  (more…)

Had it on for a few minutes while I was puttering around the apartment.   Found the delivery so dull and his manner so self-righteous, I had to turn it off.  He seemed to be going through the motions, reading a prepared text rather than engaging his audience.

When I did watch it, he bemoaned the fact that businesses are shipping jobs overseas and praised those companies building new factories in the United States.  Maybe I missed it, but did he express any understanding of the role our own tax and regulatory policies play in the choices businesses make to “send jobs overseas”?  Did he propose reducing regulations which make it costly to hire new employees and to run a plant efficiently.

Let me know if I missed anything.

As soon as I find the transcript, I’ll link it, but did find this good critique (not of the speech but of the president’s similarly-themed Saturday radio address) in my first quick search.

UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin has more.

Byron York thinks that if Democrats suffer major losses in two weeks, the president and his team in the White House will start pointing fingers:

Assume the polls are correct and Republicans win control of the House, and perhaps even the Senate, in next month’s elections. What lessons will the White House learn? Will Barack Obama interpret the vote as a repudiation of much of his agenda, or will he conclude that he made a few tactical errors but was still right on the big issues?

Bet on the latter. All indications coming out of the White House suggest that if Democrats suffer major losses, the president and his top aides will resolutely refuse to reconsider the policies — national health care, stimulus, runaway spending — that led to their defeat. Instead, they will point fingers in virtually every direction other than their own. Come November, it’s likely the D-for-Democrat that the president refers to so often will actually stand for “denial.”

While I normally agree with Byron York, I think he’s wrong here.  Obama’s not going to point fingers; it’s not his style.  Recall what he told Jay Leno at the dawn of his presidency:

And one of the things that I’m trying to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame. . . .   (more…)

Via RedState.com

This film has not yet been rated, but the story received a solid B+ from the White House. Catch the beginning of the end in theaters November 2010, with the ultimate conclusion to be seen worldwide in November of 2012.

The Socialist
Directed by Ben Howe. Post-Producution by Caleb Howe.
Based on a script written by Karl Marx.
Screenplay conceived by The Sixties.
Edited by History.
Starring Barack Obama as The Socialist.

The Howes kick ass.  Follow both of them on Twitter…. or I’ll put a hex on you.  I am a warlock, after all.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Damnnnnnnnnn.  I’m not sure King Barack I has ever been dressed down like this since maybe prep school in Indonesia.

Damnnnnnnnnn!  Too bad the video doesn’t show how he answered.  My guess is that it went something like this… “well, uhhhhhhh…..aaaaaand…. I inherited this mess….uhhhhhhhh…. hope and change…. aaaaaaaaand….. uhhhhhh…. Republicans are evil.”

I know, I know… the lady must be racist.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I can’t believe this video was made in January and I just saw it yesterday.  Fate.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)