At some point, "I'm not as bad as the other guy" begins to fail as a political strategy when your own policies are pretty damn bad. I'm a practical person--I don't demand 100% fidelity to my views from any politician I support. That said, at some point the politicians I support need to do *something* to earn my votes/$$$. I'm not getting off my butt for someone who keeps kicking me in the face.

What's the matter Jack? The following pablum from 2008 not enough for you to cling to?

"The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America."

The President appears to be realizing that he can either take actions that help the economy recover, or actions that ruin more of the economy then his policies already have. One serves his political ambitions. One serves his philosophical ambitions. The two are not compatible, and never have been. I suspect there's quite a tug of war going on in his mind up at Camp David this weekend.

Well, if the press didn't give the guy a pass in 2008 then perhaps we'd have someone else as the president.

For heaven's sake, Hillary would have been better.

How ironic that he is quickly becoming a catastrophe for Democrats and progress.

The whole scenario reminds me of a neighborhood whose wooden homes are suffering from the presence of a large termite mound in the center of town and whose mayor refuses to destroy it because it would mean job loss in the pest-busting industry.

Right now 2012 is shaping up like the Oregon governor's race of 2010 -- an eminently beatable Dem against a corporate-stooge Republican who thinks lowering the minimum wage will save the economy.

John Fairplay's remarks about Obama's policies ruining the economy mimic Michelle Bachmann's ridiculous assertion that gas prices were never this high until Obama took over. Hint to GOP: Most voters can remember 2008. Take some ownership of the wreckage, offer a semi-coherent vision of how this time will be different, and you win in a landslide.

I'm increasingly under the belief that the United States is ungovernable as is, and that the U.S. should cease to exist as a single nation and should instead break up into about 15 or 20 independent countries.

Of course, would Oregon be willing to join Washington? Or would Oregon join California (since those two states are equally mis-managed)?

Erik H - Ecotopia baby - OR, WA, No CA, and BC.

You have to admit it would be much more efficient to just elect an established Republican in 2012 instead of watching more of Obama's slow conversion.

Not to worry. President Bachmann will sort it all out.

Nice quote there PJ, but you left out the Teleprompter breaks.

When so many are ranting against the President is it possible his action is the wisest choice?

I'd say "I hate to say I told you so..." but that would be a lie. Sometimes a little schadenfreude is good for the soul.

It's no surprise to me that Obama has turned out to be an empty suit. I could see that from the very beginning. It appalled me that so many otherwise intelligent people couldn't (or wouldn't) see it. Welcome to the "What were they/we thinking when they/we elected this clown?" club.

What were they/we thinking

You never know what people are thinking unless they tell you honestly. I can tell you what I was thinking when I voted — somewhat enthusiastically — for Obama: McCain/Palin. I think we're significantly better off with what we got, even though I know that's not saying much.

Even Hillary would have won against those two. And as long as she and Bill were getting paid, they might actually have stuck up for the little guy once in a while. Obama just sells out, on pretty much everything.

Obama is a "just in time" guy.

Take note that in August 2011, for the first time since March 2003, there were no American combat deaths iIraq.

I still say wait for the second term.
If Romney beats him, country moves right and even more pro-biz and the courts get more judges who live in fear of socialism.
If a Bachman-Palin-Perry wins, the country moves crazy right.
If the right splits because the nominee is not crazy enough for a substantial number of Ts, Obama wins in a walk.
And maybe then he can be more of the president we hoped for.

......wait for the second term.

I don't remember the "Terms subject to change" clause in the Hope and Change fine print.

Just read the McCullough biography of Truman. Noone, but noone, thought he would be re-elected. The day after the election, the Washington Post hung out a huge banner reading "welcome back, from crow-eaters". Gamblers had Truman odds of reelection at 1 in 15.

Obama will probably win, because the Republicans can't seem to pull out anyone decent; Huntsman and Romney seem to be their only reasonable choices, and noone is paying any attention to them. Bachmann is unelectable, but would probably be no worse than Obama. Perry might be better than Obama, but I doubt he will survive a scandal of some kind, about a long-term mistress, a love-child, a tape surfacing of a racist/homophobic/misogynist rant, a secret membership to some racialist organization, or what have you. He has all the markings of a well-camouflaged sinner. Now, if he is actually baggage-free, he could be elected, provided he doesn't say anything too stupid. He benefits from an "uncluttered mind", we hear, which may be good or bad, on the campaign trail. He was once a Democrat, and is for tort reform, which means he can't be all bad.

I know! Hillary could switch parties and run again! Bill could start a new party, (the "party-on party"?), and run again!

But she/he won't. And we'll be stuck with this flailing speechifying jerk for another four years. Maybe it will be the final straw that will lead to changes in our antique form of electoral government.

Obama should be leading Republican polls!

Comments sound like people would rather hold onto their questions, unanswered, than have the truthful answer they don't want to handle. Two pieces of reality can be considered (to answer all questions with a single consistent explanation), and altogether it amounts to just what Jack says -- 2008 election a total waste of time, effort, money and faith (in newsmedia's America).

Consideration One: Obama is the ultimate hollow 'Manchurian candidate' who has no choice but to follow orders without any 'say' in matters. This description fits almost all of the people in federal gov't, operating under threat and coercion and blackmail and extortion by The Powers That Be (with a 'license to kill' as the public has been told), and elected persons have no personal integrity nor power, nor active intent except selfish 'career' advancement, selfish reelection, and feathering a selfish golden-retirement 'nest egg'. Obama is different and worse than all the lookalikes since he was 'adopted' at birth, raised, developed, and (en)trained by (and as part of) CIA operations in human experimentation for basal psychological indoctrination.

Documents provide the evidence assembled in a book about to be published which details Obama's lifelong brainwashing by CIA 'handlers' (or 'guardians'), and you should read the excerpt of the first two chapters HERE. It's a truth that is hard to handle.

A sample document shows Obama aka Barry Soetoro's 1-1-1968 (age 6 yrs 5 mos) registration for school in Indonesia, whereon is stated that he (the child, having renounced, or having had someone renounce for him, his Hawaii-born USA citizenship), holds Indonesian citizenship, exclusively, as required by law for students enrolled in school there then.

Obama's registration card at St. Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, listing his citizenship as "Indonesian." [Bangsa: Warga Negara: nation of citizenship]. Note: WayneMadsenReport has obtained two laws from 1958, still in force, from 1967 to 1971, the period of Obama's school attendance in Jakarta, that state: 1) only Indonesians could attend either St. Fransiskus Assisi and Menteng Elementary schools and 2) Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship, which means Lolo Soetoro would have had to have renounced Barry Soetoro's natural-born U.S. citizenship prior to Obama being admitted to either of the two schools. WMR is working on a certified English translation of the two applicable 1958 Indonesian laws.

[ n.b. Read of the manner of "facts fixed around the policy" (of a foregone conclusion on which the facts are based), HERE: WarIsaCrime.org/node/1 ]

Documented instances of 'electronic voting' frauds are strewn throughout the news items and archives of (websites) BlackboxVoting.org and Bradblog.com

In short, the vote totals are pre-programmed and the act of voting has no effect, in the second place, and in the first place the candidates are in fact not truly the persons and personalities the massmedia presents them to be, so even if enough ballots were cast to elect them, they would not be and voters would not get the person and effects the voters meant to choose.

-
Voting doesn't matter and besides the candidates are fake props. That's our situation. So what can we do to restore democracy lost?

The prudent and peaceful way to proceed is: 1) dissolve the Union; 2) get up constitutional correspondence Committees in each state to compose a (new) US Consti2tion; and then 3) enact a (new) Union which admits States that ratify the Consti2tion.
The chaotic and calamity way to go is doing heck-of-a-job nothing to prevent the impending US break-up and breakdown, let the collapse happen (and millions of souls perish) among Americans who have no clue what to do and can't get an Act for passage together.

Either way, peace or chaos, self-governance can not be resuscitated in today's totally corrupt form of federal gov't. A new form, a reformation is required to be rebuilt starting over from square one.

Sitting around asking the same question repeatedly -- 'What's the deal with Obama?' -- obstinately refusing to consider the explanation that answers and quiets the questioning, is not correcting anything, is not getting the job done.

Lucsadvo,

I read your link in its entirety. It shows us a perfect example of the innate, sometimes latent tendency, of all humans to reject enslavement. In the USA, rejection of slavery is ingrained, society-wide, after these last hundreds of years and all of the developments that have transpired. As Harry Truman said, the country was perfectly safe from communism because "we have far too many sane people".

So crazy overwrought Christian fealty-to-husband-and-children movements spawn movements to to help reveived victims recover from such movements, and the band plays on.

But to say these movements are "as bad" as Islamic fundamentalism is not only wrong, it is a betrayal of each and every one of its victims. Seventeen-year-old gay kids are publicly hung in Iran, for being gay. Gays there are being faced with the death penalty versus surgical mutilation of their sexual organs and artificial transmutation of their psychosexual identities at state-funded sex-change clinics. The government there aims to exterminate homosexuals as a group.

And you can honestly sit in your office and type an opinion that the Christian or Jewish fundie movement in this country is "just as bad", as the terrorizing of the gay community in Iran??? That Bahais are "just as bad"???? Bahais are heavily pacifist religionists who advocate supportive persuasion to try to help their gay adherents turn straight. (Like all idealists, they have a tendency to naivite; this does not make the "just as bad"!!!)).

And every single president in my living memory has claimed to be evangelized, Democrat or Republican, and I no longer attach any importance to a politician's professions of faith. If Perry wants everyone to pray for rain, and he can run the country effectively, I care not one whit about his raindancing.

Now, Obama has his justice department sueing a school district because they wouldn't let a newly-hired junior math teacher take a month off in the middle of the year to do the Haj (which incidentally, is reported to garner 60% of funds that wind up supporting terrorist organizations, through charitable giving during the pilgrimage).

In this instance, I most definitely DO care about a president's attitude to religion, and I find Obama's to be abhorrent and hypocritical.

Gaye, you haven't been paying attention, have you? The TP leaders want to recriminalize sexual activities between consenting adults. I think they forget that the US Supreme Court struck those laws down in Lawrence v. Texas or they are just constitutionally challenged.

And have you ever read The Handmaiden's Tale by Margret Atwood? That remains a potential if some of these nimrods get their way.

Good to see back amongst the living Tenksey. I had feared the worst.

John Bradach wrote: Take note that in August 2011, for the first time since March 2003, there were no American combat deaths in Iraq.

And how many American combat deaths in Afghanistan in August 2011? It would be 69 - which is the highest monthly toll ever.

Thanks for your concern, Mr.T. In recent times I've liked your comments more as some 'hard edge' in them seems rounded-off, more circumspect. As compared to reflexive (spastic) skepticism absolute, (like your namesake's A-Team character), disheartened self but masked to the outer world as a cynic's heartlessness. Recently, I sense emerging loveliness, comparatively ... perhaps in misery finding companionship, comaraderie of hard times and shared sacrifice; ('misery loves company').

Maybe you'd enjoy like I do a certain website of a Salem(?) resident I highly esteem. He features the word 'skepticism' in his website introduction and/but I don't get it, I don't understand the 'motto', it is extremely advanced where I'm unsure I reliably grasp it all. Above politics. Beyond society.

Arachnoid.COM

I recommend the archived chronicle of his 4-year solo sail around the world.
Full-on A-Team.

Lucsadvo, please pass on credible information sources that supply evidence of your claim that the TP wants to criminalize homosexuality. According to the TPs "contract" they are trying to get politicians to sign, it's all about the money, as far as I can tell. Also, they coined the phrase "lobbyists are a criminal class"; this alone makes them an interesting group.

Tea party "contract" points:

-Identify constitutionality of every new law
-Reject emissions trading
-Demand a balanced federal budget
-Simplify the tax system
-Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality
-Limit annual growth in federal spending
-Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010
-Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
-Reduce Earmarks
-Reduce Taxes

And even if some of them ARE interested in bringing up the subject of the legality of sodomy, they and their ilk aren't going to get anywhere on the subject, because the vast majority of Americans, frankly, my dear, just don't give a damn.

Just remember folks - IT'S THE ECONOMY! Just ask 90% of the population if they are better off in 2012 than they were in 2008; and the answer will be a resounding NO!
At this point, a bobblehead could win against Obama..

Gaye, honey, I am about to take off for wine country for the day but here's what you can admire about the TP leaders:

http://www.truth-out.org/definitive-guide-bigotry-2012-republican-primaries-so-far/1315145453

Dave A. yeah - it's about the economy but I personally did far worse because of Bush-Cheney and pretty much anyone, the bulk of whose retirement is in a 401k would say the same.

I read it all, Lucsadvo, and found not a shred of evidence that anyone is trying to criminalize homosexuality. Other than Santorum, noone has even said anything prejudicial about gays! If there is some evidence of prejudiced mind in the analysis in your link, it ignores the fact that ALL GROUPS are comprised of prejudiced members. The only racist-funny incident I heard about at my kid's school was when a black kindergartner announced that his mom had said he couldn't have a white girlfriend. The only charter school in Portland that is not falling all over itself to attract kids of all races is SEI, whose mission is to educate underprivileged black kids, and by God, noone blinks at such segregation.

Prejudiced minds are everywhere, and if we are to expect politicians to keep their prejudices unexposed, we will narrow the field to a very small group. We need talent in politics, not perfection. We shouldn't magnify any and all evidence, even flimsy evidence, of prejudice to the point that we can no longer conduct a sane analysis of a politician's overall platform and ability to push it forward.

Harry Truman was arguably one of our best presidents, yet, he used the terms "nigger", "kike", and "faggot" casually. But in spite of his prejudices, he recognized Israel; he laid critical groundwork for the civil rights movement, pushing and passing federal anti-lynching laws and abolishing the poll tax, and establishing the Fair Employment Practices Commission. It was a known fact in his circle that he abhorred race-based violence towards blacks. In 1948, he was the first president to actually craft a statement on civil rights for public consumption:
"The Federal Government has a clear duty to see that Constitutional guarantees of individual liberties and of equal protection under the laws are not denied or abridged anywhere in our Union. That duty is shared by all three branches of the Government, but it can be fulfilled only if the Congress enacts modern, comprehensive civil rights laws, adequate to the needs of the day, and demonstrating our continuing faith in the free way of life."

We're coming home tomorrow from a family vacation in Australia, where I found a single sign of group bashing.

A plump gay man in a black T-shirt with a message. A lavatory-signage style one-man-one-woman stick diagram of a bride and groom. The bride had a smiley face, the groom had a droopy face; the bold caption underneath read: "GAME OVER." I smiled. A little heterosexual-bashing was amusing and stimulating, in an otherwise VERY PC country...

Gaye, I will try to find the links for the comments on criminalization though it's a busy day for me again today. Meanwhile, please understand you just don't run in the right circles to hear het bashing here in the states. But I'll clue you in on a minor one. There is a particularly ugly shade of green paint that has been nicknamed heterosexual green to denote het's lack of aesthetics. And of course there is a pejorative term for hets that I won't post here.