Do you agree with Obama's compromise?

[Bakustra]

Boehner wilfully, with much arm twisting, screwed the pooch on the debt cieling slash "budget" deal. I think O won and there will be another round of house cleaning on both sides of the aisle next year. The deal is laughable.

PS I still think O will be a one termer.

Explain what you find laughable about the deal. After all, it's the first step on the road to dismantling ~entitlements~ and Obama is willing to walk pretty far down that road.

[Count Chocula]

Boehner wilfully, with much arm twisting, screwed the pooch on the debt cieling slash "budget" deal. I think O won and there will be another round of house cleaning on both sides of the aisle next year. The deal is laughable.

PS I still think O will be a one termer.

Explain what you find laughable about the deal. After all, it's the first step on the road to dismantling ~entitlements~ and Obama is willing to walk pretty far down that road.

Sure. IIRC actual cuts are under 100 billion out of a 2 trillion expenditure list, no actual budget, more borrowing, 7 instead of 9 trillion added debts IF future Congresses follow this plan. Boehner, Reid and O kicked the can. The "Super duper bipartisan house senate budget cut super star chamber" will fail. O gets mo money, Boehner and his ilk get fired next year, and no reductions actually happen. Win win for the Prez!

Feel free to correct my numbers, a Droid phone sucks for lookups.

[Lord Zentei]

Boehner wilfully, with much arm twisting, screwed the pooch on the debt cieling slash "budget" deal. I think O won and there will be another round of house cleaning on both sides of the aisle next year. The deal is laughable.

PS I still think O will be a one termer.

He only "won" as a politician by pushing the resumption of this bullshit to 2013, so he could start this over only after being re-elected. In his capacity as leader of the Democrats and as President, he certainly didn't "win" anything.

As for his re-election prospects, that's entirely dependent on only one thing at this stage: whether the Republicans nominate someone who is palatable to the independents and the right-leaning Democrats, and who is non-controversial so as to convince the progressives to stay at home. He's not winning anything on his own strengths, that's for sure.

[The Romulan Republic]

Four words: he caught Bin Laden.

Plus hey, the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal is going through. So he has achieved some things. Not as much, perhaps, as most of the Left would like, but something.

[Thanas]

Lonestar, Degan, this thread hijack about tealiban or whatever "funny" new butchering of the English language stops right now.

[Lord Zentei]

Four words: he caught Bin Laden.

Plus hey, the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal is going through. So he has achieved some things. Not as much, perhaps, as most of the Left would like, but something.

Fair points, but it remains to be seen whether the momentum of the Bin Laden killing will carry over till November next year. I somehow doubt it.

[Patrick Degan]

Four words: he caught Bin Laden.

Plus hey, the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal is going through. So he has achieved some things. Not as much, perhaps, as most of the Left would like, but something.

Fair points, but it remains to be seen whether the momentum of the Bin Laden killing will carry over till November next year. I somehow doubt it.

BinLaden's death is, even now, only a bit of trivia about the year 2011. Next year, nobody is even going to remember who Osama BinLaden ever was —not while they're losing their jobs, their homes, their life savings, and the college funds for their kids. Nobody's going to care about DADT.

Obama has gotten nothing for his cave-in, especially now in the wake of the bond rating downgrade. He has presented the public face of a weak, ineffectual caretaker of the White House who can get rolled and run over at will by his opposition; a man who apparently has no real convictions about anything or has no will to actually stand up and defend what convictions he has. He looks like a loser and, barring the unexpected, will very likely be the loser in 2012.

[Surlethe]

He looks like a loser and, barring the unexpected, will very likely be the loser in 2012.

Funny, the Republicans are just as pessimistic about their chances against Obama.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 44008.html

Snapshots from President Obama's efforts to improve America's standing in the world, 923 days into his administration:

A is for the Arab world, and our standing in it: This year, Zogby International found that 5% of Egyptians had a favorable view of the U.S. In 2008, when George W. Bush was president, it was 9%.

B is for the federal budget deficit, which is estimated to come in at around 11% of GDP in 2011, up from about 3% in 2008.

C is for China's military budget. For 2012, Beijing plans to increase spending on defense by 12.7%. The Obama administration, by contrast, proposed Pentagon cuts in April averaging out to $40 billion per year over the next decade, and Congress may soon cut a lot more.

D is for—what else—the federal debt, which grew to $14.3 trillion this month from $10.7 trillion at the end of 2008. D is also for the dollar, which has lost almost half its value against gold since Aug. 2008.

...

W is for the Dubya, whose presidency now looks like a model of spending restraint.

X is for Liu Xiaobo, an example of what a deserving winner of the Nobel Peace Prize looks like. X is also for Xanax, likely to be remembered as the drug of choice of the Obama years.

Y is for Yes, We Can! Unfortunately, it's also for Yemen.

Z is for zero, which is the likelihood that one of the current GOP hopefuls will defeat Mr. Obama in 2012.

[Thanas]

Obama has gotten nothing for his cave-in, especially now in the wake of the bond rating downgrade. He has presented the public face of a weak, ineffectual caretaker of the White House who can get rolled and run over at will by his opposition; a man who apparently has no real convictions about anything or has no will to actually stand up and defend what convictions he has. He looks like a loser and, barring the unexpected, will very likely be the loser in 2012.

Nobody the GOP currently has can go up against Obama and win. Nobody.

Which is why Obama of course can get away with a lot.

[Mr Bean]

Nobody the GOP currently has can go up against Obama and win. Nobody.

Which is why Obama of course can get away with a lot.

Thanas is correct, it's not that Obama is not weak, Obama is as weak now (Or weaker) than Bush was in 2004, but likewise in 2004 the Republicans are not putting up the A-List talent against Obama. The best A-List guy who did not come off as crazy was Huckabee and he's not running. Everyone else is either crazy or a serial loser. The same Tea Party that won them seats in 2010 is poised to lose them the Presidency in 2012 if only for the fact that no Republican is willing to run as the moderate alternative and be treated like a real contender by the media. Gary Johnson and Buddy Romer are both in the race but are getting zero air time. If the Republican party had any sense they would push one or the other into the debates to see if the Republican voters want something other than old white ultra Conservative, or old white conservative businessman or old black conservative businessman or Michelle Bachmann.

[Simon_Jester]

If the Republican party had any sense they would push one or the other into the debates to see if the Republican voters want something other than old white ultra Conservative, or old white conservative businessman or old black conservative businessman or Michelle Bachmann.

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no, probably not," and I suspect the Republican leadership has even more reason to be sure of this than I do.

[Patrick Degan]

I wish I could be as optimistic about Obama's chances. All that's required for Republican victory in 2012 is low voter turnout, a passive Obama campaign, and the GOP managing to not nominate a complete gibbering imbecile to head their ticket. We got the first one last year, and there are a lot of independent voters pissed off at this White House as well as progressives, so a lot depends on how many of them simply choose to stay home next November. As for a passive campaign, given how Obama has allowed his enemies to define the narrative on every legislative fight he's lost or won by a very narrow victory after a bruising struggle, that is entirely possible as well, and it's not as if Obama can exactly point to any sort of track record of big successes, and he's going into next year with a shitty economy behind him and that never bodes well for incumbents. The X-factor comes down to who the GOP put up as his opponent.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wish I could be as optimistic about Obama's chances. All that's required for Republican victory in 2012 is low voter turnout, a passive Obama campaign, and the GOP managing to not nominate a complete gibbering imbecile to head their ticket. We got the first one last year, and there are a lot of independent voters pissed off at this White House as well as progressives, so a lot depends on how many of them simply choose to stay home next November. As for a passive campaign, given how Obama has allowed his enemies to define the narrative on every legislative fight he's lost or won by a very narrow victory after a bruising struggle, that is entirely possible as well, and it's not as if Obama can exactly point to any sort of track record of big successes, and he's going into next year with a shitty economy behind him and that never bodes well for incumbents. The X-factor comes down to who the GOP put up as his opponent.

Actually, I think you're underestimating Obama as a campaigner. He's good at it, or at least he was back in 2008.

And my faith in the GOP's ability to nominate someone who isn't either a raving loony (ie Bachmann) or a typical conservative flip-flopper looser with no charisma (ie Romney) is basically non-existant.

[Jim Raynor]

As a proud American...I've lost all faith in the public's decision-making ability. When the rationale for voting in a crapload of Republicans and Tea Baggers was "we need change" (nevermind WHO they were changing to), I can very well see Romney or whoever the GOP puts up there beating Obama in 2012. Especially if the economy and unemployment rates continue to be poor. "It's the economy, stupid," is often stated as the #1 issue on people's minds, by far. And right now, it seems like the Republicans control the message on that topic. If only because the current Republicans don't need to take responsibility for this mess, and they've refined "tax cuts" and "reduce spending" into powerful mantras.

Also, is it just me, or do the Republicans absolutely own all the political TV ads right now? We had that yellow peril, fear mongering "Chinese professor" ad late last year, before the GOP swept up dozens of seats in the Congressional elections. Right now, there's the one with the concerned mother worrying about her sleeping daughter's future, as well as the ad with all the shipping containers labeled with "debt" or the Chinese flag (there's the commie boogeyman again) piling up on above a scared little girl (there's another girl), ready to crush her. Then there's Mike Huckabee, coming out to tell people how much Obama's policies suck.

Where I work, we have CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News on our computers, and are allowed to keep them on throughout the day. So I see the above-mentioned ads all the time. On FOX, of course. But also on CNN and MSNBC, the designated "liberal" network. WHERE is the liberal response? I'm absolutely astounded that there aren't nationally-televised ads right now, calling out the Tea Party/Republicans on EASY things. Like a plea for people to accept a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction, including both spending cuts and tax raises (because we know how much some independents love the Golden Mean). Or pointing out how the Tea Party screwed with America during the whole debt ceiling fiasco, when the need to raise the debt ceiling was NEVER seriously questioned by anyone sane in either party. Or explaining how far the Right has shifted the debate on wealth, when a person making $250,000 per year (an income level nearly in the top 1% of the US) is no longer considered "wealthy." Or flat-out refuting the BS about Obama's "socialist" attempts to tax us all into oblivion, by pointing out historical tax rates. Man, that Nixon, what a commie.

This stuff is EASY and should be all over national TV. But it's not, from what I can tell. Certainly not in the same levels as the Republicans' propaganda.