Free Markets, Free People

Jimmy Carter

To call Obama’s foreign policy “Carteresque” is an insult to Jimmy Carter

For a few decades, Jimmy Carter has been thought of as the modern president with the very worst foreign policy.  He’s also been considered the bottom of the heap of modern presidents as well.  But James Kircheck makes the point that the one positive accomplishment in all of this is the Obama administration’s ability to elevate Jimmy Carter from worst to next to worst when it comes to both the presidency and foreign policy.  An objective look at the foreign policies of both presidents shows some remarkable similarities, but there are also striking differences.  The biggest is that upon examination, Carter’s foreign policy, while poor, wasn’t at all as inept and incompetent as the current president’s.  When the Iranian hostage crisis and the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan took place, Carter at least had a plan and executed it:

By January, Carter announced a series of proposals directed at weakening America’s adversaries. First was a 5% increase in defense spending, a move that angered many of his Democratic allies in Congress who had taken to slashing the defense budget in the wake of the Vietnam War.

In his State of the Union address, Carter announced what would later come to be known as the Carter Doctrine: that the United States would use military force to protect its vital interests in the Persian Gulf.

Next came an embargo on grain and agricultural technology to the Soviet Union. Carter also declared that the United States would boycott the 1980 Moscow summer Olympics unless the Soviets withdrew their troops from Afghanistan. When they did not, he began covert funding of Afghan rebel fighters.

Conservatives like to credit Ronald Reagan with ending the Cold War. To the extent that the collapse of the Soviet Union was brought about by American policies and not the internal contradictions and weaknesses of the communist system itself (a debate that engages historians to this day), the last year of the Carter administration laid the groundwork.

Now you may disagree with what he did and how he did it, but at least he took action.  On the other hand:

The correlations between the world situation in the twilight of the Carter administration and in the second Obama term are hard to ignore. Once again, Russia has invaded a neighbor. Only this time, that neighbor is on the European continent, and Moscow went so far as to annex — not merely attack — its territory. And once again the Middle East is in flames, with the prospect of another Islamist movement taking control over a state, this time in Iraq.

But rather than respond to the collapsing world order by supporting our allies and undermining our adversaries, the Obama administration dithers. It is an indication of just how worrisome the situation is that many in Washington are pining for the resolve and fortitude of Jimmy Carter.

For months, the beleaguered Ukrainians have requested the most basic of military aid. The administration sends Meals Ready to Eat. Even hard-hitting, “sectoral” sanctions aimed at the Russian economy are viewed as too provocative.

Last year, Obama declared a “red line” on Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people. Assad’s deployment of such weapons, the world was told, would constitute the sort of breach of international law and norms requiring an American response.

When Assad did use such weapons, Washington allowed itself to be coopted into a farcical deal — proposed by that most altruistic of world leaders, Russian President Vladimir Putin — that saw the purported removal of Assad’s chemical arsenal. The message from Washington to Assad: You can continue murdering your people en masse and destabilizing the entire Middle East, but just do so using conventional weapons.

When you analyze what this administration has done, or in may cases not done, you’re left scratching your head.  At least what Carter did had some short term and long term plan.  As pointed out, it laid the basis for future foreign policy (whether or not you agree with its direction).

But when you look at the Obama foreign policy (or lack thereof), it shows no direction, no leadership, no nothing.  Add to that a feckless John Kerry preceded by an equally feckless Hillary Clinton and the US suffers on all fronts in the world arena.  Where there was a discernible lack of respect that emerged due to Carter’s bungling at times, it was nowhere as deep or as widespread as the lack of respect in the world for Barack Obama. The two examples above typify both the emptiness and toothlessness of this administration’s attempts at foreign policy.  The lack of leadership is telling.  And again, Obama et. al. seem to think that symbolic acts serve the purpose and that talking equals action.  For instance:

Few take America, least of all Secretary of State John Kerry, at its word anymore. Earlier this week, Kerry demanded that Russia urge separatists in Ukraine to disarm “within the next hours, literally.”

Or what? This empty threat followed months of similar reprimands from Washington.

Precisely right – or what!?  Same in Syria, with Russia, Iran, well, you name it.  Empty threats and hand-waving.  Red lines drawn, erased and redrawn.

And, of course there’s the “blame Bush” side of their “foreign policy”:

Obama and his surrogates endlessly complain about the “disaster” they inherited from the Bush administration there, but the country was largely pacified by the time Obama entered the White House. Today, due largely to American absenteeism in the region, Islamist militants that make Al Qaeda look like a Rotary Club control a large chunk of the country.

There is no real reason we should be witnessing what we’re seeing in Iraq, had this administration not made the SOFA agreement conditions unacceptable.  Its handling of that was “failure by design”.  And now, well now the inevitable has happened hasn’t it?  Our answer?  “Buy jets from the Russians”, a move that will let them steal another step in the region.

Kirchick concludes:

Global instability is on the rise and faith in America’s stabilizing presence is on the decline, and all we have from Washington are empty, millennial-friendly buzz phrases. “Leading from behind” was how one, too-clever-by-half administration official termed Obama’s global strategy. Hitting “singles” and “doubles” is Obama’s own, jocular assessment of his foreign policy. And now, “Don’t do stupid s—” is the mantra being repeated throughout the halls of the White House and State Department.

“Don’t do anything at all” seems more apt a description of this administration’s approach.

I disagree slightly – the mantra being repeated through the halls of both the White House and State Department isn’t preceded by “don’t”. They’ve been doing “stupid s—” since day one and continue to do it on a daily basis. And there is absolutely nothing that seems to indicate that won’t be the case for the rest of Obama’s term. While the majority of the nation and the world are seeing the horrific downside produced by this inept and incompetent administration’s “foreign policy” and lack of leadership, there is at least one winner – Jimmy Carter.

~McQ

There are polls and then there are polls

As I’ve said repeatedly over the years, candidate vs. candidate polls are virtually useless this far out from an election (9 months).

There’s little reason to pay attention to them.  So when you see these:

Obama 49.0%
Romney 43.3%

Obama 50.0%
Santorum 42.5%

Obama 53.0%
Gingrich 39.1%

Obama 48.6 %
Paul 40.4%

Remember this:

[I]n January 1980, the Gallup Poll showed:

Carter 63%
Reagan 32%

And, of course, there are plenty of other examples of those sorts of polls to be found if you look.

That said, there are polls that are indicators because they provide a history that lends itself to identifying whether or not an incumbent is actually in trouble or not.  The candidate v. candidate polls above really don’t.  We’re still in the early stages of nominating a candidate for one party and the focus has yet to really turn on the incumbent.  Numbers will change, I suspect fairly dramatically, when that happens.  And, to this point, I’d suggest that most of the country isn’t yet engaged in the presidential race.  That will happen 6 months from now when you can begin to pay attention to those polls pitting candidate against candidate.

But to those polls that matter, or at least point to historical trends, etc.  Here’s one:

It’s February, nine months before a presidential election, and only 22 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going.  Voters haven’t been this unhappy with the country since George H.W. Bush’s presidency, when only 21 percent of Americans reported being happy with the country’s direction. And before that, the lowest approval rating was 19 percent during Jimmy Carter’s first term.

What do the two presidencies have in common? Neither of them won re-election. And, if the trends holds true, Obama looks to be in an equally precarious situation.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research released its 2012 campaign outlook, and it’s clear Obama’s sitting in the same position George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter were in during the February before their election losses—voters don’t feel good about the country.

So when I hear Democratic strategists like James Carville saying things like this …

The only way the president will lose according to Carville is if some event takes place and changes things.  He maintained it wouldn’t be the result of the GOP nominee outshining Obama.

“Right now, things are starting to perk up a little bit,” he said. “Who knows? This is the — no Republican can beat Obama. Events can beat Obama. He’s not going to get beat by a Republican. Now events could come in and cause him to lose the election. But that’s it right now. That was not the case three months ago.”

… I laugh.  This is pure “whistling past the graveyard” and political spin.  Carville is engaged in psychological warfare here.  He wants everyone to believe the worm has turned and it is all sunlight and roses for his candidate.

If dissatisfaction can be called an “event”, then that’s the event which should put Obama exactly where he belongs in November  – planning for his presidential library in 2013.

Carville knows as well as anyone that at this point in the process, his choice for re-election has gone almost unscathed and his record mostly unscrutinized.   But that will change and it will change dramatically in a few months.  And about that time, the focus of the nation will begin to turn to national politics. 

The fact remains that the American public is not happy and when it is not happy it tends to not reelect its president.  That is the “event” this president faces.   And my guess is, when the GOP finally settles on its candidate, OMG (Obama Must Go) will be the driving “event” which determines the election.

Carville says “no Republican” can beat Obama?  I disagree.  In the end, any Republican can beat Obama.  Some by larger margins than others, certainly.  But that’s my prediction.  The Democrats really haven’t a clue about the level of dissatisfaction that exists with this president.

Even the president most demonized by the left had better numbers than Obama does.  At the January SOTU prior to his 2004 re-election run, George W. Bush enjoyed a 41% satisfaction rate (as did Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton).  As noted, Obama is at 22%, 3 points above the president almost universally identified as our worst modern president.

Let’s see if James Carville is still laughing after the “event” it November.  My guess would be “no”.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Looking for Ronald Reagan

A poll out today shows that even with all the early debates and attention GOP presidential candidates have gotten to this point, most Republican voters remain uncommitted:

About eight in 10 Republican primary voters say it is still too early to tell whom they will support, and just four in 10 say they have been paying a lot of attention to the 2012 presidential campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Herman Cain, the former restaurant executive, is riding a wave of support among Republican primary voters that has placed him in a statistical dead heat with rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, in a race that has been characterized by momentum swings among the candidates.

The poll found Mr. Cain with the highest level of support, with 25 percent of Republican primary voters, and Mr. Romney with 21 percent. This difference is within the poll’s margin of sampling error.

Adding to the fluidity of the contest, about one in 10 Republican primary voters say they would like to see someone else nominated.

As bad as President Obama might be, it is clear that there is no particular love to be found for the present Republican field.   Perry has all but imploded, Bachman continues to marginalize herself, Paul has a rabid but small contingent of supporters but can never seem to get beyond that, Gingrich has way too much baggage, Santorum is a marginal candidate at best and Mitt Romney is the nominee of last resort.

The reason, in my opinion, that Herman Cain has risen in the polls is because he comes from a background of business success.  He reflects a desire by many to have someone who can take the reins of the government and steer in such a way that it becomes a help to our economy, not a hindrance and drag.  His increased support speaks to a desire for someone in office with economic and business experience.  

But I think there’s also a great desire, so far unfulfilled, for someone who has a clear vision that can be articulated and that captures the imagination and revives the spirit.  And while Cain may fill the practical side of the equation, at least to an acceptable extent, he’s not been able to fulfill the “vision quest” part.   As gifted an orator as he might be and despite the fact he’s got practical and successful business he’s not been able to persuade enough Republican voters to come to his side to put him in the unassailable lead.

And of course neither have any of the others.

Republicans are still looking for Ronald Reagan.  A man or woman who can not only lift the malaise but lift the spirit as well.   Who can not only apply practical principled solutions to our problems but make America feel good about itself again. 

Right now, that person isn’t yet in the race, or if he or she is, they’ve not emerged as such.   This country is in desperate want of inspiration, reassurance and practical experience.   The current candidates just aren’t measuring up to that want or need.   Thus the poll results.

Is there a Ronald Regan out there?  Is there a candidate that will finally step forward and fulfill those voter wants as Reagan did when running against Jimmy Carter.

I often wonder what the outcome might have been had any of these candidates running for the GOP nomination today had been the choice against Carter.  I’m not so sure Carter would have lost.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

America in decline?

That’s the consensus in an interesting poll just published:

More than two-thirds of voters say the United States is declining, and a clear majority think the next generation will be worse off than this one, according to the results of a new poll commissioned by The Hill.

A resounding 69 percent of respondents said the country is “in decline,” the survey found, while 57 percent predict today’s kids won’t live better lives than their parents. Additionally, 83 percent of voters indicated they’re either very or somewhat worried about the future of the nation, with 49 percent saying they’re “very worried.”

The results suggest that Americans don’t view the country’s current economic and political troubles as temporary, but instead see them continuing for many years.

My father used to tell me “you live between your ears” meaning attitude and outlook are yours to control and play a critical part in life.

Attitude and outlook are also critical in any sort of economic recovery.  If the attitude is pessimistic and the outlook deemed as dismal, it sometimes becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I remember back in the days of the Jimmy Carter presidency, the “malaise” that settled in on the country.  People felt everything was out of control.  Interest rates were through the roof, we were seen as a paper tiger in the world and whatever else Jimmy Carter might be, he wasn’t much of a leader.   Everyone then thought America was in decline then too.

But then Ronald Reagan came along, took charge, changed the attitude and outlook of Americans and, well, the rest is literally history.

One of the key jobs of a President of the United States is to address the country’s outlook and attitude.  It is a very important aspect of leadership.  It is also critical to recovery from economic problems, unemployment and other ills that are besetting our country.  It is about setting up the proper climate to make attitudes swing to the positive side and the outlook appear rosier.

One of the things I’ve said consistently since Barack Obama has taken office is he’s not (nor has he ever been) a leader.   That’s actually no surprise to me because I understand what leadership requires.   In a word, development.   The great leaders of today, with very few exceptions, worked their way up to their ultimate leadership job through a series of lesser leadership jobs. 

I use military examples because they’re familiar to me, but no division commander ever took that job that hadn’t first been a platoon leader, then company commander, battalion commander and brigade commander.

And even then, some division commanders are better than others.   But regardless, their leadership skills have been developed and honed by successive leadership positions of increased size and responsibility.  And the weak leaders have been cast aside in that process.

We’ve elected a man who hasn’t even had a platoon, if you get my drift.  And now we’re asking him to lead (well, in reality, we ask him to lead 3 years ago) in a very difficult time.

This poll indicates how well he’s doing.

In any school in the land, his grade in leadership would be “F”.

Is America in decline?  Under this president the answer is “yes”.  Does it have to remain in decline?  No.  But to change that, the first step is voting the present occupant of the White House out of office.  The good news is we all know what happened to Jimmy Carter.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Are you better off today than you were in January 2009?

Obama is prone to liken himself to Ronald Reagan at times (and Abe Lincoln at others).   If you remember the Reagan/Carter race, the question in the title is a paraphrase of the question Reagan rhetorically  ask of voters during the campaign.  Obama is definitely on the wrong side of that Reagan question.  You can expect a resurrection of that question (if the GOP has any sense at all) in the 2012 election.

The answer to the question manifests itself in a recent poll and it is not very encouraging for the incumbent president.  An NBC/Washington Post poll just released gives the latest “atmospherics”:

Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of "poor."

A slim 15% claim to be "getting ahead financially," half what it was in 2006. Fully 27% say they’re falling behind financially. That’s up 6 points since February.

A significant majority (54%) says they’ve been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times — and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%.

So, you say, doesn’t it depend on who voters blame as to who this poll negatively effects?  Well, yes, of course.  And here’s an indicator of who that might be:

Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama’s jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president’s measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.

I’m sure you’re all familiar with the fact that independents have been deserting Obama for quite some time.  We just had a Pew poll that said many whites that previously supported him have left him.   And it gets worse for Obama:

Obama’s overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.

That prompted Bernie Sanders, Socialist – Vermont, to exclaim the other day:

"I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition."

He’s not the first to float that heretical idea either.   And that sort of talk is a sure sign of crumbling support within one’s political base.   When even the “homers” aren’t happy (and the reason really doesn’t matter) then you can be assured most of the rest of the voters aren’t happy either.    Obama is trying desperately to run to the center and all he’s really accomplishing by that run is to lose base support.   It doesn’t appear the big middle is warming to his attempts to woo them as support for him in all areas continues to drop.

Standard disclaimer applies – in political terms it is still light years to November 2012.  That said, these are trends we’re talking about here.   They’ve been developing over quite some time.   Looking into the future, and given the economic reports we’re seeing, it’s hard to see how this all improves enough for Obama to offset the high negativity that is building right now.

And despite continued efforts to push this off on Bush, this is now considered to be Obama’s economy, whether he likes it or not.  The excuse was good for a year or so as many were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that.   However, now it’s considered whining.  Obama ran for the job, got it and is now expected to perform up to the standards or expectations he established in his campaign.   On all fronts, he’s falling woefully short and most people have no patience for the continued attempts to pass his failure off on someone else.

So …. are you better off than you were in January, 2009?

Very few Americans find themselves able to answer “yes”, at least at this point.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

The second term of Jimmy Carter?

Charles Hurt at the Washington Times seems to think so:

It has taken three decades, but Americans are finally living through Jimmy Carter’s second term.

Now we’ve got Jimmy Jr. barking at us from the White House about eating our peas and ripping off our Band-Aid. He might not even let us have our Social Security checks.

These are just the latest in a long line of nagging lectures. Already, we have been taught how we should sneeze into the crook of our arm. We need to drive less. And we need to caulk up those drafty houses of ours.

What ever happened to the soaring rhetoric and big bold ideas President Obama promised us in that historic election of his?

Billy Hollis hit this very well the other day.  This is how intrusive government has become.  And as we all know, this has been an incremental thing taking years and years.  Yes, it’s more prevalent under Democrats but Republicans have done their share as well.  

I lived through the Carter presidency and I can see many parallels to that time and that man.  I remember him as the incredible shrinking president.  It seemed he almost visibly shrunk in size as his term continued.   I’ve never been more happy to see a president shown the door  – until now.

Carter was pathetic and ineffective.  Obama is dangerous.  The good news, if there is any, is he’s also fairly incompetent and the Democrats couldn’t organize a circus if they had a monopoly on popcorn, hot dogs and cotton candy.   But that aside, there are some Carteresque things going on that certainly remind me of Jimmy:

One of the most unpleasant things about Mr. Carter was the condescending disdain he could barely disguise for struggling Americans and their irritating malaise.

Increasingly, Jimmy Jr. is having difficulty concealing that very same disdain for us as the political winds around him turn hostile and all of his bright ideas lie fallow as nothing more than socialist hocus-pocus.

But even Mr. Carter never laid bare so baldly and plainly as Mr. Obama did earlier this week his deep-seated contempt for this whole annoying process we call “democracy.”

I have to agree that Obama’s condescension is at least as bad as Carter’s.  I’m not sure what happens to some people when they achieve the Oval Office, but they seem to want to be the Daddy-in-Chief instead of the Commander-in-Chief.  There’s something within that makes them feel they have to meddle in the lives of others to the extent, as Hurt and Billy noted, of lecturing on eating their peas.  

And Hurt is right about Obama’s apparent disdain for democracy.  Other than a tool to get him elected, Obama has displayed little desire to accomplish his “change” legislatively.  Instead we have executive fiat the chosen path with the EPA getting ready to enact rules that appear to be regulator overreach and properly the  business of Congress.   We have the administration single-handedly shutting down oil and gas production.   The NLRB is on a vendetta against businesses and busily trying to enact a pro-union agenda.   Democracy?  Who needs it.

And then there’s the sanctimonious hypocrisy:

The problem with reaching a deal to raise the debt ceiling, he explained in a long sermon, is that there is this huge wave of Republicans who won control of the House in the last election by promising not to raise any more taxes and to cut the absurd overspending that has driven this town for decades.

He bemoaned – in public – that these Republicans are more concerned about the “next election” rather than doing “what’s right for the country.” In other words, he is saying the honorable thing would be for these Republicans to ignore the expressed wishes of voters, break their campaign promises and raise taxes. Wow.

Exactly.  This while he tries to frame the whole thing politically as well.  I mean what was the walk out but political theater – something of which Obama is a master?

Jimmy Jr., as Hurt calls him, has to go.  We’ve suffered through most of one term of the “Daddy-in-Chief” (one political sin among many). Among many things I’m most tired on the Chief Nanny.  I’d prefer we make him eat his political peas come November 2012 and go back to community organizing.  And among near future generations, I’d prefer Barack Obama be the example of a totally failed presidency and retire Jimmy to the political peanut farm.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Carter: Obama has given up on Middle East peace

Former President Jimmy Carter is not at all impressed with Barack Obama’s efforts toward Middle East peace.  Speaking Tuesday at the LBJ library’s annual Harry Middleton Lectureship series, Carter said that in terms of the peace process in the Middle East, "nothing is going on."

Answering a question about Egypt, the former president praised President Obama’s handling of the situation there saying he’s "done quite well" and that Obama has handled it "about the same way I’d have handled it if I’d been in office."

However, on the broader question of the Middle East peace process, Carter was much less complimentary saying, "President Obama has basically given up on peace in the Middle East."

Pointing out that Obama had started out well, Carter blasted Obama by claiming that he’d now become "more accommodating to Netanyahu and Israel than George W. Bush was."  Trying to dampen his critique of the Obama administration, Carter said he really wasn’t there to criticize, but he’d been asked a question and that was the answer.  "I don’t have any feeling of success for what President Obama had done in the Middle East", Carter concluded.

The session was an hour long question and answer period on a wide range of topics including Carter’s run for the presidency, his term in office and his work after he left office.  In it Carter’s most pointed remarks came during the discussion of the Middle East peace process.

Often cited as someone who cozies up to dictators, Carter admitted to having "lunch or dinner" each time he went to Egypt with Omar Suleiman, the intelligence chief, because he knew "more about the Middle East than anyone", and he described Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad as a "young, fairly progressive president" who had "inherited" the presidency from his father.

But it seems that even the likes of Jimmy Carter knows an empty suit when he see’s one and a person from whom you would expect to see fairly significant support can’t find it in himself to say anything positive about the Obama Middle East peace initiative – or lack thereof.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Another Obama supporter finds “disappointment”

I think we could probably make this a regular feature on Q&O – this week’s Obama supporter who finds that he who was wrapped in all the hype of the presidential campaign was mostly an empty suit.

This week it is the editorial board of the Denver Post – who admits to endorsing Mr. Obama in 2008 because they thought his ideas for recovery from the financial crisis were better than McCain’s. 

But we also hoped he would restore the nation’s reputation with the rest of the world. But instead of being vilified, as we were under Bush, the United States is now suddenly bordering on being irrelevant.

So glad you noticed – a man with no executive experience and no foreign policy experience was somehow going to be an instant foreign policy success?  Those that supported Obama had to fool themselves into believing none of that was important.

They’re also discovering, in the world of foreign policy, that it is much better to be respected and feared than liked and irrelevant.   And, as the Post notes, we’re on the latter side of the equation with “liked” being a relative term.

Look, foreign policy and diplomacy takes place in a world of relative anarchy.  Big dog politics if you will.  If you’re the alpha male, other countries defer to your judgment, strategies and ideas.  If you refuse the role, someone will attempt to take it.  It isn’t a matter of our “decline” that’s caused this, but Obama’s refusal to lead.  The Denver Post is honest enough – now – to note that.

The Post lists the results of the Carteresque foreign policy of the last 18 months and, as you might expect, it’s not pretty.   And even while claiming that at least on the domestic front he’s “accomplished” something, they’re not particularly impressed with that either:

His health care plan, approved only after the type of backroom, sleazy deal-making he crusaded against during his campaign, does little to bring down exorbitant costs and could bankrupt states once higher Medicaid costs are passed down.

The $1 trillion stimulus provided only a blip of a recovery, while saddling the nation with an unsustainable debt load. And the federal government’s reach into business and the financial world, for better or worse, is now deeper than ever.

Welcome to finally beginning to figure out who this guy is and what he’s about.  Too bad it’s about 20 months to late.  You get what you vote for (or endorse) which is why it is so important to do a thorough job of vetting a candidate, something the media, to include the Denver Post, didn’t do.  And now we have an unqualified person in the Oval Office doing the only thing he knows to do – pushing an ideological agenda.  But, as is becoming apparent now, he’s not a leader.  That takes us back to another leaderless era in America that this presidency is coming very near to replicating:

There’s also been an intangible, yet inescapable, sense of unease in the country, reminiscent of our late- 1970s malaise. Faith in Obama’s "Yes we can" slogan has faded faster than the Obama-Biden stickers still clinging to bumpers.

Indeed.  The Post then wonders:

One media outlet asked last week: Can Obama get his groove back?

Someone tell me – other than campaigning, has he ever actually had a “groove” since he’s been in office?

The answer is an obvious “no”.  And it’s thanks to “media outlets” like the Denver Post that we’re in the middle of the presidency of an unqualified man who is doing possibly irreparable harm to this country.  They didn’t do the due diligence expected of the media but instead became cheerleaders.  Now suddenly, they’re concerned.  Excuse me if I answer that with a giant “I told you so” and dismiss their sudden angst as too little and, unfortunately, too freakin’ late.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

[tweetmeme only_single=”false”]

Observations: The Qando Podcast for 20 Jun 10

In this podcast, Bruce and Dale discuss the dissatisfaction about President Obama’s competence, the oil spill, and the American stranded in Egypt.

The direct link to the podcast can be found here.

Observations

The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.

As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don’t forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don’t have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here. For podcasts from 2005 to 2009, they can be accessed through the RSS Archive Feed.

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Observations: The Qando Podcast for 13 Jun 10

In this podcast, Bruce, Michael, and Dale discuss whether President Obama’s “Jimmy Carter Moment” is approacjing as a result of the BP Oil spill, and his proposal to eliminate the mortgage interest rate deduction.

The direct link to the podcast can be found here.

Observations

The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.

As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don’t forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don’t have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here. For podcasts from 2005 to 2009, they can be accessed through the RSS Archive Feed.

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!