Originally Posted by Weave

You lefties shouldnt blame Obama, you bought his dog and pony show with full knowledge of his underwhelming qualifications for President.

His "qualifications for president" aren't what's in question here. He's very capable, an experienced administrator, a fine public speaker, and obviously good at getting deals out of a less-than-perfect Congress. Those who call him an "empty suit" are demonstrably wrong. If he were trying to do what he said he would be trying to do in the campaign, I have no doubt he'd be at least moderately successful at doing it. The problem is that he campaigned as a progressive and has moved in office decisively to the right. It's not that he isn't capable. It's that he isn't trying.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

His "qualifications for president" aren't what's in question here.

The funny thing is that those who are calling his "qualifications" into question are usually the folks who are the most adamant about the strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution. Well, now that the birthers have been discredited (unless you're on the conspiracy fringe), he's clearly a natural born US citizen over 35 years old. For someone who eats, sleeps and breathes the strict interpretation of the Constitution, isn't that enough to be fully qualified?

I don't think Weave was talking about Obama's constitutional qualifications but about his competence. Anyway I've seen no evidence that Weave is or ever was a Birther.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

In your scenario, where will the jobs come from?

The thriving businesses

Originally Posted by Weave

The thriving businesses

How do you reconcile this idea with the fact that the era of big government (1940 to 1980) outperformed the era of small government (1900 to 1940) in terms of per-capita annual real GDP growth by more than two to one?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

His "qualifications for president" aren't what's in question here. He's very capable, an experienced administrator, a fine public speaker, and obviously good at getting deals out of a less-than-perfect Congress. Those who call him an "empty suit" are demonstrably wrong. If he were trying to do what he said he would be trying to do in the campaign, I have no doubt he'd be at least moderately successful at doing it. The problem is that he campaigned as a progressive and has moved in office decisively to the right. It's not that he isn't capable. It's that he isn't trying.

He has proven himself absolutely incapable of administering most everything. He farmed out the job to Pelosi and Ried while he sits back and shows NO leadership. He had NO executive experience, never led anything, never ran a business and was a joke as a Senator both in the US Senate and the Illinois senate. Voting "present" isnt administering.....He is good at reading scripted speeches off a teleprompter and he has charm and charisma, seems like a nice guy, but thats about it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't think Weave was talking about Obama's constitutional qualifications but about his competence. Anyway I've seen no evidence that Weave is or ever was a Birther.

But my point is that those who adhere to strict Constitutionalism should honor what that document defines as "qualified." And that means "natural-born US citizen over 35."

Originally Posted by Weave

He has proven himself absolutely incapable of administering most everything.

Your bias is clearly showing. None of what you said in the paragraph beginning with that sentence is even remotely true. At the very least, you should recognize that this is NOT what the left is criticizing Obama about. We don't see him as incompetent. We also don't see him as on our side, and that's where the problem arises.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Your bias is clearly showing. None of what you said in the paragraph beginning with that sentence is even remotely true. At the very least, you should recognize that this is NOT what the left is criticizing Obama about. We don't see him as incompetent. We also don't see him as on our side, and that's where the problem arises.

And the funny thing is, the left ignored warnings that he was a:



and just went on its merry way.

And this is why I didn't vote for the guy.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

How do you reconcile this idea with the fact that the era of big government (1940 to 1980) outperformed the era of small government (1900 to 1940) in terms of per-capita annual real GDP growth by more than two to one?

I wouldnt exactly call the period of 1900-1940 the era of small govt. The "progressive era" from the early 00's to 1920 saw a big expansion of Govt and Regs, and 1930-1940 saw a HUGE expansion and Depression where GDP rates were in the tank. I wonder how your GDP would score from the New Deal 1933-1981 when Reagan came to office. Or from 1921-29 (when taxes and regs were reduced)? Or better yet during the so called Gilded Era prior to 1900.

Also and very significantly, after WW2 we were the only country left standing with no competition to speak of. American businesses were dominant in all most major industries if not all of them. We began to lose that when others emerged and could produce for less. We now have to compete with China and India who do not have the expensive overhead, they have low tax rates and non lawsuit happy environment to deal with. In your world, the best we can hope for is that
Chinese workers unionize, lawsuits flourish and thier tax rates go sky high so that they become as bloated as we are so we can compete with them. I rather see us become more competitive.......

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Your bias is clearly showing. None of what you said in the paragraph beginning with that sentence is even remotely true. At the very least, you should recognize that this is NOT what the left is criticizing Obama about. We don't see him as incompetent. We also don't see him as on our side, and that's where the problem arises.

A good example was the latest budget fight where Obama sat back and let both sides fight it out and he kept laying down markers that he wouldnt accept....and then he would cave...is that leadership? At the end, when it appeared a deal was imminent, with conditions he clearly said earlier he wouldnt accept, he jumped in and tried to claim credit for the deal...

He farmed out the health care deal to Congress and let Pelosi and Reid do the negotiating and deal making. If Obama led a business or military unit in this fashion he'd be out of a job very quickly.


I do realize that many lefties dont think he has gone far enough, I guess if I felt a Repub leader was too moderate I'd complain too. But you should also see how ineffective he is at getting things he wants, how weakly he projects himself and how his credibility as a leader is in near tatters. That image has set in and is beginning to harden. He's still got time but the window is rapidly closing to change that perception.....

Originally Posted by Weave

A good example was the latest budget fight where Obama sat back and let both sides fight it out and he kept laying down markers that he wouldnt accept....and then he would cave...is that leadership?

I don't think the Left would disagree with you here. Many lefties on this board have been calling Obama a sellout here for a year or more. You're making it sound like the Left is defending the president as "their guy," when at most all you can really say honestly is that they think he's not as bad as the GOP alternative. I think their objection comes from the idea that a president to the right of Obama would be preferable.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

His "qualifications for president" aren't what's in question here.

The funny thing is that those who are calling his "qualifications" into question are usually the folks who are the most adamant about the strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution. Well, now that the birthers have been discredited (unless you're on the conspiracy fringe), he's clearly a natural born US citizen over 35 years old. For someone who eats, sleeps and breathes the strict interpretation of the Constitution, isn't that enough to be fully qualified?

Few people would be "qualified" to be president in this time in history. People can only be led to the extent they are willing to be led. And right now with no war* going on, people without singular purpose are still at each others throats. To me, Obama is doing everything he can to stave off a civil war -- this is something he campaigned on so as I see it he's doing his job. I also see his Xer qualities coming through and it being a bit difficult for many of us to handle. People keep bringing up his blackness as a reason he can't go apesh*t like GWB or the Clintons. But the reason he can't go apesh*t is he's not a Boomer. Someone said before that Boomers view authority as sacred and flip out when they are left in charge [picture Will Ferrell as "W" on SNL running away crying "Where are all the grown-ups?"]. As soon as Obama started campaigning, before knowing a thing about generational theory, I recognized the quality. He was like the kids encouraging the rest of the unsupervised latchkey gang to work together and trust in their own ability. Clinton was like the frightened mama bear clawing at everyone to protect the helpless babies. It's a generational thing and if I didn't completely relate to Obama I'd probably be gnawing my teeth too.

*As my WWII veteran Silent grandfather told me, a war is when your family and land is actively being threatened. So the majority of America's military campaigns are not really wars.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I don't think the Left would disagree with you here. Many lefties on this board have been calling Obama a sellout here for a year or more. You're making it sound like the Left is defending the president as "their guy," when at most all you can really say honestly is that they think he's not as bad as the GOP alternative. I think their objection comes from the idea that a president to the right of Obama would be preferable.

Its interesting, alot of far lefties loved BillClinton who was clearly to the right of Obama. Clinton, however, was effective and had political savvy. He also had years executive experience dealing with a conservative legislature. He knew how to craft deals and he could play dirty when he had to much to the chagrin of my side who took him far too lightly in the early days.....

I'm not as good at predicting elections as I am on some others things, mostly because of my hope and my leftward bias. But I have got some things right. When I mention to people that I predicted Gore would win in 2000, the invariable response is, "he did." I didn't venture a prediction for Bush-Kerry, but I did predict that Kerry would be the nominee at a time when he was polling in single digits. Now I have some observations about 2012.

There's not a lot of hope for more real change, but is that really Obama's fault? Maybe he didn't lead the way toward a better stimulus package, but he did accomplish a lot considering our lousy congress. Financial reform, health care reform, repeal of don't ask don't tell, for example. Unlike what Weave says above, Obama is to the right of Clinton, and yet he got more done than Clinton did. He actually GOT a dreaded health care reform measure; the Clintons failed. He has two foreign policy triumphs now too. And what kind of supreme court would we have had if McCain has won in 2008? I put the "blame" for Nov.2010 squarely on the American people. They did what they had done in 1994 all over again. As Clinton once said of us, we need the courage to change, and we lost it, as we had done before in 1994, pretty much over the same issue. The right-wing now feels, as Weave does, that the country belongs to them; but if a wider portion of the electorate votes in 2012 than in 2010, it might not.

One thing I am better at is predicting the economy. Of course, I predicted the crash of 08 almost to the month. And I have thought that, with Neptune entering Pisces for good next February, that the economy could recover somewhat in spite of everything. That might be in time to put it off the table by November. If people perceive things are getting better, even if the statistics are still pretty bad, then Obama's ratings will improve. Right now he beats any GOP challenger even at the low point of his popularity. If the economy somewhat improves, that should be enough to guarantee his reelection against an angry, crazy weasel like Perry or an empty suit like Romney.

Will he carry with him a Democratic congress? That is his only hope for a productive 2nd term, instead of one where his only achievement is to do as Clinton did and cave in to the right-wing. It will only take 24 seats to put the gavel back in Nancy's hands, and at least 18 of the seats that went to the Tea Party or other Republican loonies in 2010 are in districts that voted for Kerry in 2004; many more are in districts that voted for Obama by healthy margins. It is doable, and though there's lack of enthusiasm on the left and anger on the right, the public is increasingly dismayed with the Tea Party. I don't think they want to give the White House as well as congress to these idiots. If Perry wins the nomination, that would be the choice. A charismatic and sensible centrist or a foolish and corrupt lunatic.

And looking at Perry's planets, I don't think he is quite presidential, or likely to be a successful candidate; though his chart does show a rather heavy-handed executive ability and spartan-like self-discipline. But this does not extend to his tongue, or to other impulsive tendencies that are shown.

Originally Posted by Weave

If the Senate House and Pres all go Repub I would see that as the Regeneracy and the old order, that of Big Government, will finally be sent to the ash heap of history. All of the unfunded promises will have to be changed, the old archaic early 20th century systems that are highly innefficient will be scrapped and new dawn of personal responsibility and local control will emerge. Young Boomers and Gen X will be hardest hit as ridiculous state pension plans such as in California will be privatized, early promises of 80% salary and retiring at 50 will vanish. Luckily with longer life expectancy Gen Xer's and younger will have plenty of time to plan for the future. The Era of Big Governement as Bill Clinton once stated, will really finally be over. Obamacare will be gone, new laws allowing health care companies to compete across state lines and true tort reforms will emerge. Business regs will be loosened and new areas for oil development will also open. Many military bases over seas will close saving billions. The Europeans will have to start defending themselves. With technology advances, large army formations will become smaller. What once took a battalion to accomplish will be accomplished with a company of highly skilled men and thier hi-tech equipment. This will also save billions. Public schools will radically change with teacher tenure probably disappearing. Teachers will have to perform or get axed.

It is hard to see why anyone would embrace the trickle-down ideology hook line and sinker, as you do. Are you wealthy, or a rich wannabee? Or did Reagan charm and hook you so thoroughly in your youth that his ideology is now fixed in your mind? You really believe that freedom is free enterprise, and that government is the problem. I understand JPT's complaint; he wants a society too poor for social experiments. I don't know if that motivation applies to you and other economic libertarians.

But whatever, no surprises: I disagree. The era of big government has been over since 1981. Your regeneracy would simply be to continue whatever "regeneracy" you experienced back then. What has it brought us? We have the most extreme inequality in our history, though comparable to the times of the previous great crash. Our inequality is now worse than many 3rd world countries, and the worst in the developed world. Social mobility is a thing of the past; only the very well endowed and lucky can advance. The middle class is shrinking and the poor expanding rapidly. These are all 30-year Reagan-Bush era trends, not Obama trends. Under your economy, you can forget about longer life expectancy.

You guys are fond of quoting Clinton, but as I keep reminding you, and you keep ignoring, the second half of his sentence was "we can't go back to a time when people were left to fend for themselves." America is not likely to agree to your outdated vision of a future like the Gilded Age. We've had 30 years of Reagan decline and regression, but the people will not forever stand for the plutocracy that he and his friends like you have created. Progress needs to resume again after this 30-plus year hiatus and counting. Your reference to new areas for oil development is perhaps the most looney thing you said above. Climate change and depletion can't be ignored forever, though perhaps ignoring them is better for your current investment portfolio. And blaming the lawyers as you and Gov. Perry do is ridiculous, a straw man, a minor factor at the very best. Tort reform will have little or no effect except perhaps to take peoples' right away. And how is one to determine if a teacher is performing well? Certainly not by testing students who don't want to learn to begin with.

America will emerge leaner, smarter and ready to face competing with the emerging BRIC bloc countries that otherwise would eat our lunch under the leftists dreams of a European style socialist state with heavy regulations and massive social welfare programs. In 1st T, the USA will be beacon of capitalism leading the world in per capita growth rates, low taxes and low unemployment rates.

I don't know who the BRIC countries are, but Europe is happy with its advanced society, and will keep it. Even Japan, China and other Asian and Pacific nations are more advanced socially than we. Only America clings to its Reaganoid delusions of the unregulated free market. Trickle-down doesn't trickle; it floods up. Jobs dry up because there's no demand. If only the rich have money, they lose it too. But that's what you want. It doesn't work. Things worked much better during the more-equal big government era, and it wasn't just due to lack of competition. Other nations recovered quickly, but America stayed prosperous many years afterward.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not as good at predicting elections as I am on some others things, mostly because of my hope and my leftward bias. But I have got some things right. When I mention to people that I predicted Gore would win in 2000, the invariable response is, "he did." I didn't venture a prediction for Bush-Kerry, but I did predict that Kerry would be the nominee at a time when he was polling in single digits. But I have some observations about 2012.

There's not a lot of hope for more real change, but is that really Obama's fault? Maybe he didn't lead the way toward a better stimulus package, but he did accomplish a lot considering our lousy congress. Financial reform, health care reform, repeal of don't ask don't tell, for example. Unlike what Weave says above, Obama is to the right of Clinton, and yet he got more done than Clinton did. He actually GOT a dreaded health care reform measure; the Clintons failed. He has two foreign policy triumphs now too. And what kind of supreme court would we have had if McCain has won in 2008? I put the "blame" for Nov.2010 squarely on the American people. They did what they had done in 1994 all over again. As Clinton once said of us, we need the courage to change, and we lost it, as we had done before in 1994, pretty much over the same issue. The right-wing now feels, as Weave does, that the country belongs to them; but if a wider portion of the electorate votes in 2012 than in 2010, it might not.

One thing I am better at is predicting the economy. Of course, I predicted the crash of 08 almost to the month. And I have thought that, with Neptune entering Pisces for good next February, that the economy could recover somewhat in spite of everything. That might be in time to put it off the table by November. If people perceive things are getting better, even if the statistics are still pretty bad, then Obama's ratings will improve. Right now he beats any GOP challenger even at the low point of his popularity. If the economy somewhat improves, that should be enough to guarantee his reelection against an angry, crazy weasel like Perry or an empty suit like Romney.

Will he carry with him a Democratic congress? That is his only hope for a productive 2nd term, instead of one where his only achievement is to do as Clinton did and cave in to the right-wing. It will only take 24 seats to put the gavel back in Nancy's hands, and at least 18 of the seats that went to the Tea Party or other Republican loonies in 2010 are in districts that voted for Kerry in 2004; many more are in districts that voted for Obama by healthy margins. It is doable, and though there's lack of enthusiasm on the left and anger on the right, the public is increasingly dismayed with the Tea Party. I don't think they want to give the White House as well as congress to these idiots. If Perry wins the nomination, that would be the choice. A charismatic and sensible centrist or a foolish and corrupt lunatic.

So your predictions of an economic recovery are based on astrology? By that logic, McCain would have a recovery in February too....nothing to do with policies etc? I find astrology, Bible prophecy, Nostadamus and the Mayan calander entertaining to be sure but I dont place alot a stock in any of it.

As far as Obama's successes you state, he sat back and allowed an overwhelmingly Democratic congress pass by hook and crook an unconstitutional health care plan that most likely will be killed in the supreme ct. and a financial reform bill that is stifling the recovery. Hardly successes. In foriegn policy I see few success. Bin Laden was his only one. If you are alluding to Libya as the other one I hardly see that as a success. Sitting back letting the Euros mishandle it for 5 mos and then at then end jumping in and claiming credit...please....We havent seen the end game by a long shot, what crazies are going to take over? More Sharia law following nutcases is my bet.

I do agree that if the country percieves things as better in the fall of '12 Obama will clearly benefit and probably win. If it remains stagnant than calling Perry crazy or Romney an empty suit (although he clearly is more of a "full suit" than Obama was in 08 or even now frankly) wont work.

In the House, the Dems will have thier work cut out for them as redistricting is going to work aganst them in many states. The Senate is even bleaker with many red state Dems up for re-election. Of course it will all go down to Obama, if he does well, the Dems have a shot, if he loses, the House will not flip and the Senate will probably go Repub.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think this is a misunderstanding of Obama. His two years in the community appear to have been resume-building. He seems to have taken nothing serious away from them at a policy level. He's a totally establishment guy, albeit of the Democratic variety, and worst of all, he appears to think that nothing is fundamentally wrong with the country that a little sound management won't cure. Perhaps that is why the Tea Party is winning--at least they say something is badly wrong.

Pat not too long ago compared him with Cicero, a "New Man" with a penchant for oratory and intellectualism who became a mostly pro-Establishment creature, even if he didn't like "teabaggers" like Cato.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

In your scenario, where will the jobs come from?

They come from the Free Market Fairy, what do you think?

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

The funny thing is that those who are calling his "qualifications" into question are usually the folks who are the most adamant about the strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution. Well, now that the birthers have been discredited (unless you're on the conspiracy fringe), he's clearly a natural born US citizen over 35 years old. For someone who eats, sleeps and breathes the strict interpretation of the Constitution, isn't that enough to be fully qualified?

In my experience (no pun intended, LOL), many of those making references about "qualifications" are using it as a dog-whistle euphemism for race.

Back in 2008 I was able to get one "moderate" co-worker (an Aquarian Boomer) who "supported Hillary" and thought "Obama wasn't qualified or experienced" to spill the beans about what was REALLY driving her dislike of Obama, she said that Obama was going to "give everything over to The Blacks".

Originally Posted by Chas'88

And the funny thing is, the left ignored warnings that he was a:



and just went on its merry way.

And this is why I didn't vote for the guy.

~Chas'88

Many of us were suckered by his Charisma and message. I swear he must have read S&H and thought of the perfect way to sucker us progressive Millies. I'm still angry at myself for letting my typically Civic optimism get ahead of my good sense.

Originally Posted by Weave

Its interesting, alot of far lefties loved BillClinton who was clearly to the right of Obama.

WRONG, both are Establishment Right-Wing Corporate Dems and differ very little on major issues. Ditto with Hilary.

Originally Posted by Odin

In my experience (no pun intended, LOL), many of those making references about "qualifications" are using it as a dog-whistle euphemism for race.

Back in 2008 I was able to get one "moderate" co-worker (an Aquarian Boomer) who "supported Hillary" and thought "Obama wasn't qualified or experienced" to spill the beans about what was REALLY driving her dislike of Obama, she said that Obama was going to "give everything over to The Blacks".

Yes, by all means, when your arguments run out of steam, play the race card. Sorry but 4 years as a junior senator without any accomplishments or significant legislation passed and a few terms in a state senate is an extremely thin resume. Colin Powell would be qualified in my book, so would Condileeza Rice as they served in important Govt positions for extended periods. Executive experience as a Governor or High Military Officer would also qualify someone IMO. Short stints in Congress probably not. Obama would have been better served to wait and run later. Or served as Hillary's VP.

Originally Posted by Weave

If the Senate House and Pres all go ... I would see that as the Regeneracy and the old order ....will finally be sent to the ash heap of history.

I hope you realize how much that sounds like what most of us on the left were thinking in late 2008 to early 2009.

It's a nice dream isn't it?

Originally Posted by Weave

All of the unfunded promises will have to be changed,

Including the ones made by Paulson while constructing TARP for the " too big to fail" banks ?

Including the ones that have been made to the military industrial complex by every president since Eisenhower left office just after giving us a warning of what was likely to come ?

Originally Posted by Weave

the old archaic early 20th century systems that are highly innefficient will be scrapped and new dawn of personal responsibility and local control will emerge.

Like it has in Wisconsin where micro breweries now have to use the same middlemen distributors that the large national chains use ?

And don't forget, there's a lot more feeding troughs for the pigs to batten on inside the beltway than in any state capital.

Originally Posted by Weave

Young Boomers and Gen X will be hardest hit as ridiculous state pension plans such as in California will be privatized

Wall Street has been after the Social Security Trust Fund for decades now.
If your guys give it to them with the current "anything goes" rules on finance do realize that you will create (briefly) a gigantic stock bubble. All of that free ( for the investment houses) money is gonna grease a lot of already well oiled skids. Ir will bring about a good time to be in the yacht or Lear jet business.

But all bubbles eventually pop and that one will too.

You will end up giving us the true Herbert Hoover of this 4T. It's just taking longer to get there because the safety nets that you so badly want to tear down are not down yet.

But who knows, you and me and all alive may get to see in 1932 America in real time internet color.

Originally Posted by Weave

new laws allowing health care companies to compete across state lines and true tort reforms will emerge.

In other words, insurance that's not worth the paper it's written on will become the norm. Thanks for clarifying.

Originally Posted by Weave

Many military bases over seas will close saving billions. The Europeans will have to start defending themselves.

Come on, keep it real.
Do you really believe the neocon wing of the GOP is going to let this happen?

Originally Posted by Weave

With technology advances, large army formations will become smaller. What once took a battalion to accomplish will be accomplished with a company of highly skilled men and thier hi-tech equipment.

Rumsfeld was convinced of this going into Iraq.
It didn't work out too well so we had to do the surge or else declare victory and bring our people home.
And coming home was a non starter with the neocons.

Originally Posted by Weave

America will emerge leaner, smarter and ready to face competing with the emerging BRIC bloc countries that otherwise would eat our lunch under the leftists dreams of a European style socialist state with heavy regulations and massive social welfare programs. In 1st T, the USA will be beacon of capitalism leading the world in per capita growth rates, low taxes and low unemployment rates.

Not with the unreformed banking sector that we have.
This is the main reason why I disagree with those who think that the 1T is nigh.
You can not run any economy with a corrupt banking system.
These new businesses are not going to be able to get the seed money that they need in our predatory financial environment.

But have a nice two years of dreaming.

Originally Posted by Weave

So your predictions of an economic recovery are based on astrology? By that logic, McCain would have a recovery in February too....nothing to do with policies etc? I find astrology, Bible prophecy, Nostadamus and the Mayan calander entertaining to be sure but I dont place alot a stock in any of it.

But my track record using astrology is good; better than other forecasters. That's really all that counts; it works. I don't get your logic regarding the Virgo John McCain, and he's irrelevant. You'd better leave the astrology to me; I correctly predicted he would lose.

Neptune in Pisces should be better for the economy; things are more fluid and lots of nourishing liquid for trade. But there certainly could be some very muddled affairs coming up, not to mention more floods, refugees, plagues, fanatical delusions, cults, etc.. So we won't see a real substantial charge forward into the future until the 2020s. Perry is a Pisces by the way, but since after Reagan, having outer planets in your signs during your upcoming term does not appear to indicate victory, as it had done for the previous 80 years. That's because, since Reagan, America is no longer the center of world consciousness and the stream of progress, which the outer invisible planets indicate. We have become a backwater, thanks to Reagan; and are likely to remain so should Perry win. The world is moving forward, and we are a hamstring around its neck.

As far as Obama's successes you state, he sat back and allowed an overwhelmingly Democratic congress pass by hook and crook an unconstitutional health care plan that most likely will be killed in the supreme ct. and a financial reform bill that is stifling the recovery. Hardly successes. In foreign policy I see few success. Bin Laden was his only one. If you are alluding to Libya as the other one I hardly see that as a success. Sitting back letting the Euros mishandle it for 5 mos and then at then end jumping in and claiming credit...please....We havent seen the end game by a long shot, what crazies are going to take over? More Sharia law following nutcases is my bet.

The only problem with HCR and financial reform is they didn't go far enough. But HCR would not have passed without his diligent efforts (I predicted it would pass, btw). To think financial reform is hurting the economy is revealing. You must be a Wall Street broker or something. They are the only people who think the very bad behavior that caused our current depression to begin with should be allowed and encouraged. You really are a space case; your memory is worse that that of the Tea Party, if such could be imagined. You don't see Libya as a success, but it clearly is. The outcome speaks for itself. He did the right thing by not sending troops and letting the Libyans and Europeans do most of the work. That means the revolution will be a success too, and it will be their success. The Libyans are as happy as clams about their new freedom. They are not like the people of Iraq or Iran, who just wanted America out and are racked by Al Qaida and ethnic hatreds and religious fanaticism. Your view of Libya proves that you are not really interested in "freedom," and you don't know it when you see it. The Arab spring is working in Tunisia and Egypt and will work in the country between them. And within a few years, during this current revolutionary era, almost the whole area will be free. The people there want to live in modern countries, with a chance to have a better life.

I do agree that if the country perceives things as better in the fall of '12 Obama will clearly benefit and probably win. If it remains stagnant than calling Perry crazy or Romney an empty suit (although he clearly is more of a "full suit" than Obama was in 08 or even now frankly) wont work.

It won't matter what names I call Perry and Romney. Their characteristics will be self-evident to all voters, and they will lose to Obama no matter what the economy is like in 2012.

In the House, the Dems will have their work cut out for them as redistricting is going to work against them in many states. The Senate is even bleaker with many red state Dems up for re-election. Of course it will all go down to Obama, if he does well, the Dems have a shot, if he loses, the House will not flip and the Senate will probably go Repub.

The stats I quoted may already account for redistricting. You can't gerrymander everything. The Republicans had already done so much of that in the Gingrich era, but they still lost in 2006. But you are right that the Senate will not see Democratic gains. Even if the Senate does not go Republican, he will have to work with DINOs to get anything done-- assuming he gets the House back, which I admit may be a long shot; but it's quite possible. Obama may have some coattails if the economy improves.