The entire Democrat spirit isn't broken either. There's still Joe, Nancy and Harry, and yes even Dane and jim x, happily singing cum bay ya, the one, come buy ya'll.

I saw a t-shirt yesterday: "Let's Change Back!"

Obama isn't what he pretended to be, for sure. But it seems to run in Democrats like a disease, that they run as moderate or even conservative (especially "fiscally"), serve as hard left liberals, and then can't understand why constituents are mad at them.

They'll never change, because they have no choice. What are they going to do - run as the hard left Marxists they are? Of course not, they count on being able to fool enough of the public (with the help of federally-controlled public education, feeding the voter pool with non-thinking, uneducated drones for decades) to win some elections.

From the Time article:

"For someone who so carefully read the political mood as a candidate, Obama has been unexpectedly passive at moments as President."

"local political capos complained privately that Obama had a tendency to touch down in their backyards, give a speech and scoot after less than an hour."

These excerpts tie in to something I read recently at TNR (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/75624/the-new-map)....

"He's been bored to death his whole life," Valerie Jarrett told David Remnick, in one of the most unwittingly damning remarks anybody ever heard. Jarrett added that "he's just too talented to do what ordinary people do."

"He's been bored to death his entire life" WTF????

Well, this poor little shallow person who happens to be our current president will, I pray, soon have lots and lots more time to be bored.

"It was sort of fake."

Bored? Doubt it. "Bored" implies that HE is so smart, everything is trival, the answers so obvious. Quite the contrary. HE knows HE is in way over his head, and way past his pay-grade. HE doesn't have a clue. And for the first time in his life, HE is being held accountable for his actions. His refuge then, is one of distain and arrogance.

Don't look for change. HE is a one-trick socialist pony. As such, the 'theory' is always correct, it is the people who are wrong.

"There is no small tactical shift we could have made at any point that would have solved that problem."

REALLY?????

Maybe concentrating on job creation policies - tax incentives, lowering Fed rates, incentives for capital lending, etc.?? Instead we get porkulus and Obamacare. They will never draw that line - which is a LARGE tactical shift - because it means their whole existence is unwanted.

Resign and get out!

Obama is nothing more than a ventriloquists dummy that reads someone's words off a teleprompter.

Who is moving the mouth and who is writing the words?

Either way, the jug eared wonder boy from Harvard is clueless and it's going to be fun from here on out to watch as this thin skinned narcissistic Marxist ideologue gets pwned every day till election day.

You KNOW the left is in trouble when even the brain-dead, slack-jawed, lifeless-eyed "true believers" who call themselves MODERATES have awakened to the fraud which is Obama!

I know that I am not the only one here that knew this would happen. Anyone with some age behind them and experience would know that no one can execute a job effectively with no experience for that job. It will never happen magically. It takes work. Obama is an inexperienced, empty suit parading around as a leader. He loves the trappings of the office and uses then completely but does not have any idea how to lead. The BP oil spill was his one opportunity to claim effective leadership on his own and he failed miserably. No surprise here. Experience needed, as the want ads say. ww

In my opinion Obama wanted to run because to satisfy his ego, to see if a black man could win, and to push as much as he could a marxist agenda if elected.
Now, like all presidents before him winning is not the same as wanting.
I do believe he knows he is well over his head. And I am not buying that he is so intellgent that he is bored. Running a country epecially America, could never be boring. Trying, scary, overwhelming, aging, but not boring.
He's a spoiled affirmative action politican who wanted to push thru the ceiling to see how far he could get. Once he got there he did not know what to do. And I don't feel sorry for the people that get fooled by him.
It was over before he started.

Why is it that none of your posts have any context, rick?

It's as if you don't spend 10 seconds thinking about the meaning of what your posting - you just get a rage on, find someone or something you hate, and go at it.

Is it relevant that Ronald Reagan's job approval numbers were lower that Obama's are now at the same point in Reagan's first term?

Likewise Bill Clinton's?

And both of those presidents went on to be re-elected for second terms.

Don't you ever "think" about what you're posting? It's really ridiculous - the childish things you come up with.

I see that Obama is going on vacation again this weekend. That should continue to boost his ratings.

What is heartening is that the president is losing support among the under 30 voters. They are learning the same lessons I learned in my early 20s with Jimmy Carter. And they, like I, will never vote for another Democrat as long as they live.

If Time Magazine(!) is starting to grasp and even to own up to this disaster of a presidency then just imagine what they're thinking over on Main Street....

Dane, the two points you bring up are irrelevant to the Time magazine story and barely relevant to this discussion. Is it relevant that Bill Clinton's job approval was as bad as Obama's. Ask me again November 3, after Obama's agenda gets a far worse drubbing in the polls.

As for the question of reelection: Ronald Reagan won reelection because his policies helped create 25 million jobs. There's no chance of any job recovery by 2012. The administration's taxation and regulatory jihad will likely kill another 5 million jobs.

Bill Clinton got reelected because he fired his "co-president" and tacked to the right of the new Republican majority. (Remember welfare reform?) I doubt the rigidly Marxist Obama can even move to the center.

"Mr. Unpopular"? Au contraire. monsur. Ya gotta LOVE the guy. He's the Republican Party's best asset, well, him and Holder and Clinton, too. They're the gifts that keep giving.

Of all the posts I've put up on my little blog, "...and the sharks will come." gets the most hits by far.

It seems like every few days something like this turns up to validate it.

To Dane: Your points about Reagan and Clinton are valid. But, Obama's not either one of them. Bill Clinton could morph into whatever he had to, as easily as breathing.

Obama seems to genuinely consider himself a Messiah who has our best interests at heart (in spite of ourselves), knows what's really best for us (since we're too stupid to see it), and is incapable seeing things any other way.

So, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any change from him. Instead, expect to see more of the same; with still more idiots advising him, that he just "needs to get his message across better to help us understand him."

Unfortunately for him, we do understand him; that's his current problem.
-

Kevin Drum has a blog post on Michael Scherer's Time piece about the reason for Obama`s present unpopularity, as well, but reaches not surpringly, a different conclusion. I tend to agree it, that it's the economy, stupid.

Indeed, despite winning personalities, Clinton and Reagan were just as 'unpopular' according to the Gallup polls taken halfway through their first terms. Reagan was seen as detached, later the 'Teflon' president, (coined in 1983, on the floor of the House by (D) Pat Shroeder).

What began as a process of delegation is rapidly approaching abdication. The Post's Lou Cannon and David Hoffman wrote (in 1982) that Reagan "is probably the most detached president that has served in that office in a long, long time." His detachment is extraordinary, in face of record unemployment and a fiscal crisis that threatens intolerable deficits of $200 billion or more each year for the foreseeable future.

I would have to change the title of this post a little Rick from....

Obama: Mr. unpopular to Yoda Ears: Mr. Unpresidential.

Now, as for the assclown who posted:

"it relevant that Ronald Reagan's job approval numbers were lower that Obama's are now at the same point in Reagan's first term?

Likewise Bill Clinton's?

And both of those presidents went on to be re-elected for second terms.

Don't you ever "think" about what you're posting? It's really ridiculous - the childish things you come up with."

We've seen Ronald Reagan asshat. And asshat , Barry's no Reagan..

"Resign and get out!"

I second that motion.

Typically moronic replies from the typically moronic commenters.

Bottom line - Obama popularity and job approval rating is in better shape than Ronald Reagan's was at this point in Reagan's first term.

Take Away - is comes down to this being just more wishful thinking from the idea-challenged right. They can't reason their way through a simple evaluation like this - all they know is NO.

I always love that "the one" nonsense. No one on the left makes religious figures out of politicians. That5 is the domain of the religious right. Witness there support for Queen Ester up in Alaska.

"Bottom line - Obama popularity and job approval rating is in better shape than Ronald Reagan's was at this point in Reagan's first term."

Ha ha ha,you keep telling yourself that thru November and then the impeachment hearings.

Barry's destructive ways are nearing there end. All thats left for him is to play golf the remaining days of his lame duck presidency.

OK Dane you're so smart we know that Clinton and Reagan turned things around we also know that Carter didn't. How does wonder boy turn it around? The country hates obamacare is he going to suggest they try that over, the country hate stimulus is he done with that, the country hates the deficit any chance this bunch will change their ways on spending? No, I think your guy's in trouble not just because of him, he got lots of help from Nancy and Harry. His best hope is that those 2 are drummed out of leadership positions.

I think he's Carter, you think he's Clinton, one thing's for sure he's no Reagan.

Oh and war child I don't remember any conseratives talking about turn back the rising oceans do you? That sounds a little over the top to me, let's just suppose that came out of the mouth of oh say Mitt Romney. You're guy made himself out to be way more than he is a simple politician with a bunch of bad ideas and crappy advisors.