All style, no substance. People keep saying how brilliant he is, but, I sure as hell don't see it. He is incapable of speaking his own words, and he acts more like he is the King, than the President. 19 months is enough. Do America a favor, and quit!

I actually pick c) the option where Obama and his 'team' are doing exactly what they planned.

just my thoughts

Jennifer (#2) is right. He ran on a lie in an election bought for him by sources we know not. Enabled by a compliant media, unions, self-servers in industry, academe, Hollywood, feckless opposition and a totally ignorant, self-hating electorate in all categories, he and his accomplices have moved the radical agenda that was hidden during the campaign but was to emerge as he retreated from his promises. He never had any there, there, a fact that has been kept under wraps with the help a bias that is rampant.

Well in all honesty he could not even stay true to his lifelong church of kkk of GDing America. So its no surprise to us that Lackwit has failed to unveil even one unicorn or a nugget of gold at the end of the rainbull.

He is a sock puppet in the european mold with a mideast ideology.

Another vote for Jennifer's explanation. He's doing exactly what he wants to do, and he's succeeding at it. It just doesn't happen to be what he said in the campaign that he'd do.

With, Obama`s disapproval rate at 43% due to the terrible economy, a halting jobless 'recovery', the 9.4 or 9.6 % unemployment rate, the consistent loss of manufacturing jobs to China and corporate downsizing, where are the new jobs to come from? Even Apple`s ipad was manufactured in China. We might have to learn to live with a 10% unemployment rate or worse for the forseeable future.

Anyway, compared to othe Presidents, Obama is doing about as well or badly as most Presidents into their terms, at this time, and under these circumstances, Reagan was at 41% and Clinton 39%. And many more Americans, according to a Newsweek survery, still blame America's continuing recession more on Bush than Obama, about 2 to 1. Question 12.

That's my take - Obama isn't what he was cracked up to be and he was abetted by the media in running a fundamentally dishonest campaign

The deep recession only became evident after the nomineees were elected in September, 2008, and it was politically very difficult for anyone, the candidates, their advisors, the think tanks, the bean counters the press to change their mind sets or crystal balls.

All the figures for the upcoming budget plans, should have immediately been thrown out the window, before the election. They had become all nonsense. Obama was as complicit as anyone, with his sanguine, hopeful predictions that the crisis could be overcome in a year or so, but the voters didn't want to hear the more realistic view it would be a very long time before the ecomomy picked up and not without huge public deficits.

Why doesn't anybody ask why the jobs are leaving? If your answer lays the blame with corporation, then you're smoking what Crickmore is. Truth is that the US has a government that is hostile towards businesses -- at least the businesses that aren't sleeping with them. This administration is the most anti-business yet.

Well, Clay, I don't think so. The consensus on this blog, which teeters on libertarism was that the feds should have let Chrysler and GM go to the wall, and those companies are now being turned being around, 18 months later and providing some job growth, just not enough.
Sure, more needs to be done with small businesses.

#6

6 comments in and blame bush is conjured up. Wow, you libs need a new playbook.

Conservatives, especially Wizbangers, never respond when asked how things would have been better had "doddering old coot" McCain been elected.

Does anyone here think that McCain would not have proposed some sort of Keynesian stimulus had he been in charge in 2009? Do you really think a man who ran the craven, say-anything, desperate campaign he ran would have had the stones to resist the pressure to "do something?"

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't notice any articles on Wizbang calling George Bush a Socialist (or a lackwit or a dunderpate) when he was shamelessly trying to buy votes with his $152B rebate program in 2007-2008. Were there any?

Yep, Barry is doing what he wants to do. Only problem is that he can't get a majority to push it all through. So in a way, yes, he is stupid. But that's what comes from living in a bubble with people who think exactly the way you do. You don't see any other alternatives, and the standard socialist excuses apply to those who "oppose" you. They're just a bunch of illiterate, RACIST!, redneck bumpkins, clinging to their bibles and guns.

No thought given that "they" are of the pompous, 'educated', elite intelligentsia who think that they "can get socialism right this time". Disregard that it's been a FAILURE where ever it's been tired.

Baron you're a) or b) is far to generous. I tend to agree with Jennifer's c).

"Sure, more needs to be done with small businesses."

Like what? Take them over?

BRILLIANT!

I don't think it is the case of the big, bad federal government inhibiting growth. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist explains better than me.

But the stimulus wasn't nearly big enough to restore full employment -- as I warned from the beginning. And it was set up to fade out in the second half of 2010.

So what was supposed to happen? The invisible cavalry were supposed to ride to the rescue.

I never understood why the Obama administration thought this would happen so soon; history tells us that the effects of a financial crisis on private spending are normally protracted. And sure enough, the cavalry has not arrived.

Wall Street after the government uprighted itself was supposed to be lending money, and the big corporations when they got out of the red, were supposed to be doing much more hiring, but they haven't, therefore people aren`t moving to new jobs, therefore real estate sales are down..and so on.

Speaking of help for small busineses,

The legislation Obama is promoting would ease the terms for loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration, providing $12 billion in tax breaks and issuing grants to states to provide business loans.

Community Banks

It would also provide $30 billion to banks with less than $10 billion in assets to encourage lending to small businesses. The cost of paying back those capital infusions would decline based on the level of small-business lending by the bank. The aid would spur $300 billion in lending, according to the administration.

The legislation was faulted by Republicans such as Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama for being a government rescue similar to the $700 billion bank bailout of 2008. The program might induce banks to make risky loans, critics said. It was blocked by Republicans before the Senate recessed for August.

Auto suppliers, community banks and franchise owners banded together to push for the provision to boost lending, saying it is crucial to letting them expand and hire new employees. Democratic leaders will try to get the bill passed when lawmakers return to Washington in September.

Good Luck to Obama, Republicans will likely band together to stop this!

"encourage lending to small businesses"

You really are a fucking kook aid drinker, aren't you. Why don't you list all the "extras" that small businesses are being saddled with thanks to your Obamassiah and Ms Nancy? Yeah, they're all for helping small businesses.

Idiot.

$300 BILLION in lending? Yeah Stevie, I'll check back with you on that on November 3rd.

And Stevie, how's that "SUMMER OF RECOVERY!" working out for ya?

Yeah, yeah, those nasty evil Republicans are holding up everything aren't they. Just imagine what they'll be able to do when they have a MAJORITY in both Houses...like the Democrats enjoy right now.

Put me on Team Jennifer! I believe BHO has a high intellect, yet very limited knowledge and experience. He was schooled in Marxism (only): socializing the nation is his "Change" - equalization of all is his "Hope". And now we know.

Bruce-

"Conservatives, especially Wizbangers, never respond when asked how things would have been better had "doddering old coot" McCain been elected."

We would still recognize the Country Bruce. Thats how.

Well Bruce, we can never know how things would have turned out under McCain. Lord knows I had to hold my nose when I voted for him. At the very least a divided government tends to do less - so less stimulus and less health care mandates, but with the risk of more energy rationing and immigration amnesty.

Blech! Damned if you did and damned if you didn't. 2008 in a nutshell.

As far as Bush, I didn't have the keys to Wizbang during the TARP debate but I was agin it too. I'd rather have taken it in the can hard and let the market recover organically than be stuck in a rut for a decade with a government that has now institutionalized "too big to fail."

And I posted this about the auto bailouts:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/12/19/son-of-a-bush.php

FWIW

It would also provide $30 billion to banks with less than $10 billion in assets to encourage lending to small businesses. The cost of paying back those capital infusions would decline based on the level of small-business lending by the bank. The aid would spur $300 billion in lending, according to the administration.

And the stimulus was supposed to spur $3+ in benefits for each dollar, but actually provided less than $1 benefit for each $1 spent. And with the stimulus unemployment would stay below 8%. We see how well that worked out...

Ever notice when the resident trolls talk about what the Democrats "are going to do", it's always FUTURE tense. Never anything about what they've already done.

Sort of like this years mid-terms. The Dem's are told not to mention legislation passed, but rather talk about all the GLORIOUS things they're going to do in the future.

2 years running the country, and the economy is still falling. But no worries, the Democrats 'are going to do something about it, just you wait.' And wait. And wait.

Panem et Circenses (Bread and Circuses)

The quote is very applicable, when Rome made the transition from Republic to dictatorship they controlled the mob by keeping their bellies full and entertained, the public then would give up their responsibilities and allow themselves to be governed by the elite.

Funny how history always repeats itself. Were gonna bail you out here, were gonna bail you out there, were gonna make sure you get fed and your family is provided for, right at the level your used to!

Hey what is Paris Hilton up to this week? Who's in the final 4? How is that big screen plasma, made in China by low wage workers, working out? Good reception?

Sad, Sad, Sad day's in America when we drop words like "Trillion" and don't even blink an eye. When we have Nobel Prize winning economists saying were not spending enough of the public funds on government control. By the way, any Nobel won in a social science is a bunch of horseshit, usually garnered by the prevailing political ideology of the choosing members.

Obama reminds of every idiot graduate student I've ever met that filters the whole world through the prism of whatever he happens to be studying. This usually is something like psychology, archeology, or black studies. I'm astounded that people find him even remotely intelligent. Graduating from Harvard is not that big a deal. I hate to sound elitist, but it's the truth. He is though clever, and I mean that in the pejorative sense it traditionally had. But as far as smarts go. He is laughable at best.

I see no reason why a senseless dunderpate ant also be an improvident lackwit.

Why choose?

"Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist explains better than me."

BWAHHAA...Paul Krugman and the Nobel Prize. Everything you need to know about the Nobel Prize is that Al Gore "won" it for a global-warming movie, since debunked with numerous lies and falsehoods:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

And Obama "won" it after having been nominated for it after only ONE MONTH AS PRESIDENT.

Matter of fact, Krugman's attitude about the economy has more to do with who is in the White House than any actual grasp on reality:

http://econjwatch.org/file_download/430/BarkleyMay2010.pdf

I like the comment about which states the Dems always say "what they are GOING to do." Not what "they have done." Because running on what "they have done" since 2007 (when they took over Congress) would have all of them thrown out of office.

That's my take - Obama isn't what he was cracked up to be and he was abetted by the media in running a fundamentally dishonest campaign.

As a brief summary, it's a bullseye. I'll just go a little further, by adding to Tomasky's list:

1) the skills required to run a good campaign are fundamentally different from those required to actually govern.

2) Barry Lackwit is fundamentally unsuited to wielding political power effectively. As a classic narcissist, he wanted the glory of being The First Black President, but gave no thought to the responsibility that came with that power. As a cog in the Chicago political machine, he never had to actually do anything to earn his political advancement. Thus, he doesn't understand power or how to use it. So, he can't use it effectively.

3) as an extreme progressive, Barry Lackwit believes that destroying the fabric of American culture is the right thing to do -- but as someone brought up on the myth of American omnipotence, he also believes that America can survive anything he does to it. He (and all his fellow progressives) believe that America can and will simply re-form around whatever new laws and structures they put in place, adapt, and continue on. The possibility that his policies will create a situation that America can't recover from is beyond his limited comprehension.

As for Bruce at #10: I thought at the time, and still think now, that McCain would have been nearly as big a disaster as Lackwit has been. Conservatives in Congress would have faced the same problem they did with both Bush 41 and Bush 43: a president who is ostensibly of the same party, so is beyond public criticism, but who doesn't share their actual beliefs or policy goals.

Many, many good comments but need to add the overlooked:

Solid B+ as whore of Babylon.

I love these Kool Aid drinkers: The reason I've got a hangover is because I DIDN'T DRINK ENOUGH! To fix the economy, we just need a lot more stimulus - paid for by our grandchildren.

O'Bama talks about Bush "driving us into the ditch," but the real problems began because of the reckless policies of Fannie and Freddie and the Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006. There's no evidence that Bush had some radically conservative ideas that failed. Bush's problem was that he knew Fan and Fred were in trouble but didn't do enough to push reform and then got on board the Congressional/Paulsen "dire emergency" bailout bandwagon. Bailouts and stimulus spending continued to grow under BHO. We have only succeeded in growing public sector employment, while private sector employment and growth have tanked.

Barack Obama - his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries.

#16.

Don't try to paint the Republicans as obstructionists. The Dems can pass anything they want. They just go behind closed doors and use reconciliation, and they have the legislation. They don't need those pesky Republicans, you know that.

Worked for Health Care. All the Republicans (and the majority of the American people) were against it, but no matter. How's that lack of bipartisanship and tremendous public ire working for the Democrats now? Seems to me the candidates are running away from your guy while they campaign. Guess we'll find out in November.

You can't blame BOOOOSSSSHHHH or the Republicans on this one.

Where did you guys get the idea he was doing a bad job? I've listened to every comment Gibbs, Biden, Pelosi and Reed have made. They say he is an overwhelming success.

Garandfan #11

"Disregard that it's been a FAILURE where ever it's been tired."

"tired" - Freudian slip? Good one!

Hussein is an America hating Marxist and he is governing like an America hating Marxist, doing everything in his power to destroy the country he despises by trampling on free enterprise and individual rights and liberty. Actual Americans are fed up with it, in spite of MSM attempts to cover up for their hero. In order to govern in a SMART political manner, Hussein would have to be an actual American, not a thug Marxist and would-be dictator. He would have to drop the anti American agenda and actually work to HELP rather than destroy the economy and employment. So by definition, Hussein CANNOT "rule" in a smart political manner. It would require he be something he is not...a believer in free enterprise, the constitution and an American patriot.

Its quite simple ...

The campaign never had to deal with the real world ... Rev Wright, Ayers, experience ... you name it and they never had to deal with it (and the media didn't try to make them) ...

governing is nothing but dealing in the real world ... its really apples and oranges ...

Dems thought they played a winning hand with
Obamacare, union payoffs, etc. They were
throwing IOUs into the kitty to brazenly
stay in the game. They LOST BIG! We're mad
because it was OUR money backing their chits,
not THEIRS. Now they want us to buy them
a big new stack of chips so they can still
play. They are inveterate gamblers in full
denial of their mania. Bastards like this
shouldn't be allowed into the casino....
much less a guaranteed seat at the BIG table.

Would you really have expected a Muslim neo-Marxist to govern any other way??