Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Barry’s Trouble Every Day

Barry’s Trouble Every Day

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It’s been very hard to write over the last several weeks. The perilous economic situation facing the nation still doesn’t seem to have captured the attention of POTUS. The events and data which should be noted by Obama fly by so fast that a discouraged I can barely keep up, much less write. Yet Obama has publicly expressed a confidence that too many of us don’t feel, and this worries us a great deal. I can remain silent no longer.

The approval polling bump received for offing Osama has sagged as unemployed Americans again ask “What have you done for us at all, Barry?” Their would-be Obama rating declineemployers enjoy Obama’s largesse while only McDonald’s is hiring. Obama doesn’t seem to understand how seriously the economy is slowing, and how unemployment is still a huge problem on Main Street, which only lends authority to the claim that Obama is listening to the wrong advice while ignoring those who have other ideas.

One commenter over at Huffington Post put it like this: “It’s not just his handling of the economy. The guy is clueless about everything­.” This should be a warning sign to Obama, especially when he’s being negatively compared to some of the Republican candidates. Alarms should sound when the observation comes from a political professional like Howard Dean, who has opined that Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in 2012.

OUCH!

But it doesn’t end there for Obama. Former administration members Christina Romer and Van Jones are making very open criticisms of Obama’s sorry leadership. Similar disparaging words are uttered by a Senator. There are many other examples, but these come from the more well-known personages.

The nation is literally crumbling beneath our feet, which is nothing new, yet Obama goes and plays golf with John Boehner. He’ll get nothing from Boehner, not even a Mulligan if he needs one. Yet I bet Barry pays at the 19th hole even if he somehow wins the match – something that won’t happen in the House as now constituted under Boehner.

The only thing keeping Obama close to the re-election winner’s circle is the fact that the Republican slate is so lame. The American people still prefer him to any of them. The devil you know, perhaps? But there are red clouds on the morning horizon, sailor! Best to take warning! A course change may well be the order of the day.

Gallup’s 6/16/11 poll results show that Obama loses by 5 points to a generic Republican as his opponent, while still displaying that all of the currently-announced Republicans remain losers. I’ve been saying for a while now that Obama is vulnerable to a real challenger, and Gallup has now provided me with the evidence for that assertion.

But you know it’s bad for the Republicans when their “best” and “brightest” can’t defeat a lame candidate like Obama. There is a reason, and conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan just might be on to the reason why. Sullivan states that traditional conservatism now “could not be less conservative” and believes that “it’s less conservative than Obama”. That would make it too radical for most American voters as currently is constituted.

Sullivan also cites Fareed Zakaria for evidence of the loss of traditional conservatism in today’s limp body politic. Zakaria dares to examine the fallacies inherent in the unexamined Republican objections to Obama’s health care reform. By doing so, Zakaria challenges the Tea Bagger Deity to smite him with the jawbone of that ass Rush Limbaugh (who will soon be denouncing both Sullivan and Zakaria as a liberals, mark my words!) when he notes that “Republicans don’t bother to study existing health care systems anywhere else in the world“. Not to do so, in his opinion, means that the Republicans are not concerned in the slightest about solving what Zakaria feels IS a real ailment in need of cure. Finally! A known conservative with compassion! But I digress.

Thus the advantage for the 2012 contest should be Obama’s by a long shot even though his health insurance profit protection plan doesn’t work for anyone. It’s till more than anything the GOP has produced. Yet he’s doing all that he can to ensure that the 2012 race will be close. He’s alienating many vital constituencies: liberal Democrats like Russ Feingold, organized labor as personified by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, and the Hispanic voters that the Republicans desperately want to win over to their cause. Obama is almost busing them to the GOP registration tables for them! How bipartisan1 He won’t even be thanked for his generousity!

Who will stand with Obama to guard his back if he’s pissed everyone off? He’s the only one who thinks they have no where else to turn!

Third party options are holding more appeal for a variety of political positions than I have seen in a while. Yet as the Gallup poll shows, people are ready for a real leader. Should one emerge (that’s your cue, Barry!) who can convince the voters that s/he has a viable plan that will clearly solve the national economic malaise, that person will win handily, and take their party to majority status in the Congress. It could take as little as two minutes to show Obama the path to victory, but will Obama rise to the opportunity? Or will he slouch off the political stage without so much as lifting a finger to deflect the slings and arrows of his outrageous political fortunes?

Because of these facts and more, I have advocated that Obama slide aside into the history books and let a real Democrat run. I’m far from the only one. A scan of the comment threads on many of the popular liberal blogs will reveal this to be true. But as has been the case since the beginning of the Obama term, we are disdainfully ignored if not scornfully derided and cast aside byt the West Wing. We warned of the disaster that the November midterm election proved to be, yet that didn’t improve our standing in the eyes of the Oval Office. Those orbs remain lovingly locked onto Wall Street, where they also demand to know what Obama’s done for them lately. They will get action, for he only hears their complaints – even the whispered ones.

I wish that Democrats would stop displaying their lower heads over the Internet and start showing they know how to properly use their upper ones to solve the issues of the country. The best way they could do this is to actually lead instead of allowing themselves to be led. If this doesn’t happen, there are a lot of voters who will turn to watching out for themselves when the GOP again snatches victory from the toothless Democratic jaws of defeat. They are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. They want to see real change, and only of the positive variety – like Candidate Obama promised and failed to deliver.

I’m watching and I’m waiting, and hoping for the best. It’s just that hope isn’t a very good strategy for vital and necessary problem solving. I am actively looking for an alternative.

Powered by

About pessimist

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Realist –

    Great article. Of course most of the BC conservatives can’t grok the fact that many, many liberals are unhappy with what we see as broken promises and failures on his way to becoming a moderate Republican. The BC conservatives are convinced we worship the ground he walks on.

    But as I pointed out elsewhere, when the 2012 election comes along, we’ll still vote for him – because for all his shortcomings, he’s still leaps and bounds better for America than any of the Looney-Tuners that comprise (or even potentially comprise) the GOP field.

    He coulda been a great president…but he wasn’t willing to go toe-to-toe, to stand and deliver. Worst of all, he hasn’t educated the American people about the issues. This isn’t to say he can’t still do all of the above…but it doesn’t look like he will.

    But he’ll still get our votes. Better a weak Democrat than a GOP Looney-Tuner.

  • John Lake

    The republicans criticize the economy, but have few ideas how to improve. Their need to support health care providers and associated companies ties their hands to any change at all. The Republicans know as we all do that northern Africa oil and gas providers are caught up in wars that make oil production a secondary issue at best. Equally important is the necessity of moving the available oil and gas, through war torn areas. Some of the Republican contenders would resort to new isolationism, in hopes of a short term improvement in the economic situation. This trend toward new isolationism seems short sited.
    It is important for America to be on good terms with the Arab nations who supply and transport the oil; none have achieved better and faster changes that Obama. As he took office in 2008, the Arab Nations hated us, and with good cause.
    An economy is fuelled by innovation; with the development of small and fast computer chips, we saw a dramatic surge in investment potential. The private sector has shown remarkable talent in continuing this surge, and in new development; but these prosperous times may not go on forever. As we have said, the prosperity becomes less obvious as the cost of transporting material goods increases.
    Deregulation of banks and financial institutions may produce an apparent surge in income, but opens the doors to corruption and profiteering. In the long run, deregulation is a threat to every American.
    Obama’s reaction to shortages and recalls in the Auto industry was an inspiration to politically and economically inclined students everywhere. A more impulsive President might have given rise to greater depths of despair.
    Job production has been spurred, but again, oil prices, and the tendency of business owners to move profits to their own pockets make any increase difficult. The programs that spend money but which produce revenue in the long run are the most effective and Obama clearly understands that.
    Recently Republicans as we said are moving toward isolationism; in recent months and years they have boasted of our strength, and attempted to maintain world dominance through threats and fear. McCain continued for years a plea to bomb Iran. Bullies sometimes fail, and wars cost lives and money.
    Mitt Romney, the Heritage people, and others have failed to see the wisdom behind China’s economic strength, much of it based on a sincere concern for China and her people, and instead have ridiculed and demonized China, making a call for new and more expensive weapon systems. The time for diplomacy is at hand; we can’t afford to guess at the Chinese strategy. This is a time for the brightest and best in America to turn attention to China, and to achieve real diplomatic ties.
    Obama said at the onset, improvement will require time. At that time, too, Republicans vowed to overcome politics, and too “reach across the aisle”. Now as elections draw near, the Republicans have finally remembered the vows. Their obstructionism has been a major factor in preventing economic growth, and yet they fail to see the real picture. They promote an unreal vision of the world, and hope in some cases that the view of the “average American” will prevail.

  • Arch Conservative

    “Obama doesn’t seem to understand how seriously the economy is slowing”

    A. Doesn’t understand

    B. Doesn’t care

    C. Is deliberately trying to destroy the economy

    Any of these are within the realm of possibility.

    Oh and John, it’s not isolationism, it’s non-interventionism.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Commenters on lefty web sites do not elect presidents. I think Realist probably knows that, but he presents left-activist complaints about the president as some kind of proof about something. Leftists always complain about everything. As to some extent do right-wing true believers [certainly the Tea Party fringe does].

    Also, Fareed Zakaria is a liberal, not just by Limbaugh’s distorted yardstick. And like most liberals [as opposed to overwrought, always-doomy lefty activists], Zakaria has a far higher opinion of the president than Realist does.

    It’s usually a bad sign when a writer says there is nothing of redeeming value about a president [not just this president]. Or that the president is ‘clueless’ about the economy. How likely is that, really?

    What would Realist do to help the economy? He almost never has any suggestions, just obnoxious moaning and groaning.

    The truth is, no one has any magical answers to the improved-yet-stagnant economy. Many slogans, no solutions. But to suggest that the president doesn’t know what’s going on, and doesn’t want things to get better, is just idiot-level ranting.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    How to improve the economy?

    Simple. Not easy, but simple.

    Bring back tariffs. Get away from Reaganomics. Tax the rich as they were before Reagan took office. Take away tax cuts for corporations sending jobs overseas. Stop subsidizing Big Oil. Tax capital gains on dividends at the same rate as all other income for an individual’s tax bracket. Allow Medicare to NEGOTIATE lower prices for medicine! And get rid of the exemptions that allow major corporations to pay zero – or less than zero – taxes.

    Do all this and we will pay off the national debt within fifteen years. But will we do all this? Will we do ANY of this? No…thanks to the amount of political power we’ve handed over to the corporations.

  • zingzing

    archie, why would obama “deliberately [try] to destroy the economy?” and why would he “not care?” (his reelection hopes are pinned to it in a very real way.) and can you think of any other possibilities? (like maybe you [and realist] might not know everything?)

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Tariffs?! Are you effin kiddin me?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    handy –

    No, I’m not kidding. Think about it, friend – we had tariffs up until the advent of Reaganomics…which meant that it was cheaper to buy goods that were Made In America than it was to buy the same goods that were made overseas. But when the tariffs went away, all of a sudden it was cheaper to buy imported goods…and businesses decided that they could not compete by keeping their factories stateside.

    Before Reaganomics, you could go into any department store and buy clothes made in America. After Reaganomics, well, I defy you to go through JC Penney’s or Macy’s or wherever and find a stitch of clothing made in America.

    Reaganomics destroyed our manufacturing base…and the ONLY way to get it back is to make goods that are Made In America cheaper to buy than imported goods.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And handy –

    Most other nations STILL have tariffs. That’s how they protect their own manufacturing bases.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    You can tell a writer has little to offer of his own thoughts when he has so many links in a piece.

    Checking the first page at random, why does your link to Van Jones in the sentence “Christina Romer and Van Jones are making very open criticisms of Obama’s sorry leadership” go to a page where Johnson makes no such criticism?

    And when was Zakaria a conservative?

    Obama’s slogan was “Yes We Can” yet most whiners like Realist fail to remember that. Liberals deserve to lose if they are going to doing nothing else to help the country but whine and pout.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Glenn, forget it. The manufacturing base is already gone. Tariffs are a dead end. The economy is and shall remain global. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would not support a return to trade wars. Ludicrous.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    handy –

    I didn’t say that it was politically doable – it’s not…at least not yet. But it IS a workable solution. Why? We’ve lost tens of thousands of factories since Reaganomics took hold – and those factories are now overseas.

    And what you refer to as trade wars was business as usual before Reaganomics. Now, thanks to “free trade” (a misnomer if there ever was one), we’ve got trade surrender without a fight.

    Which is better? A trade war? Or trade surrender?

  • Arch Conservative

    It wasn’t Reagan that signed off on NAFTA.

    Remember Ross Perot and that giant sucking sound?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

    Who said that? Vice President Dick Cheney.

    Case closed.

    (and if you’d ever paid attention, I’ve held Clinton responsible for continuing Reaganomics as well)

  • Leroy

    Reaganomics was a great rightist experiment, and it has failed.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Free trade = more trade [for everyone]

    Trade wars even lead to actual wars.

    Clinton’s ‘Reaganomics’ [I am rolling my eyes] included tax increases to balance the budget. And a proposal for universal health care. His trade policies were designed for the real world that we have to live in, not the fantasy world we wish we had.

    When fellow liberals insist on shooting themselves in the foot, I will not cheer them on. Glenn, your ideological tunnel vision is as limiting as Baronius’s, just a different brand. Destructive, backward stuff, brother.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    handy –

    I don’t think so…and the loss of our manufacturing base is my proof. When we had tariffs to protect our base, we still had our base. Once those tariffs went away, our manufacturing base couldn’t compete…and away went the factories. And the jobs. And the middle class.

    Ask yourself this, handy – if we had a major solar cell factory, would it be wrong to charge tariffs for imported solar cells so that we could protect our manufacturers – and the jobs (and the secondary and tertiary jobs that follow) that they provide?

    No.

    That’s why MOST other nations still charge tariffs. We ARE in a trade war, handy – we were NEVER truly ‘not’ in a trade war – and we’re fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. We’re trying to play ‘fair’…and we’re the ONLY ones who are playing fair.

    And that’s not fair to the American people.