Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:30 AM ET, 12/23/2010

Psst, there's no Obama comeback

By Jennifer Rubin

I'm getting whiplash trying to follow the Democrats' talking points. First, it was a disaster when Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. Obama was a wimp. Then it was a horrid error to allow the omnibus spending bill to die (and with it all that funding for ObamaCare). The White House, liberals complained, also blew it on the DREAM act. And now, presto: Obama has mounted a phenomenal comeback!

Not exactly. The sources of the left's delight -- repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and ratification of the New START treaty -- are irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans. Voters care, as the Democrats should have but refused to learn during the referendum of 2010 (the midterms results were, one wit cracked, "a restraining order" on liberal statism), about the economy, jobs and the growth of government. These are far and away the most important issues in every credible survey, and will be the focus of the Republicans' 2011 agenda.

And if the highlight of Obama's term, according to outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was the "historic" ObamaCare legislation, then the highlight could soon be extinguished. Obama's central domestic achievement is facing judicial scrutiny, a Republican onslaught to repeal, or at least defund, it, and a public that has never "learned" to love the bill.

Only inside the Beltway could the passage of an arms control treaty and repeal of DADT consume so many for so long and result in such exaggerated punditry. Would Republicans have traded wins on DADT and START for their wins on the DREAM act, the tax deal and the omnibus spending bill? Not in a million years.

But liberal media mavens have a narrative that resists "bad news" (i.e. scandals, polling, the Tea Party movement) that suggests trouble for the Obama administration. They also confuse legislative achievement with political success. If passing stuff was the secret to a political comeback, then the Democrats after ObamaCare and the stimulus plan would have had the greatest year ever.

Obama may yet stage a comeback. But to do that, he'll have to do what the left loathes -- cut domestic programs, rework entitlement programs, stand up to foreign adversaries (Obama's legacy is irretrievably ruined if Iran gets the bomb on his watch), cut back on growth-restricting regulations and keep tax rates low. And so long as unemployment remains at historic highs, Obama's chances of re-election remain poor.

But as long as the left wants to succumb to conservatives on the issues that voters care most about -- taxes and spending -- I suppose conservatives should keep mum. So let's keep this just between us.

By Jennifer Rubin  | December 23, 2010; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  Obama White House, President Obama  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Bits
Next: A suggestion to promote Middle East peace

Comments

I find it amusing that his 'comeback' is built upon extending tax cuts that he railed against for years. And then, during the debate on extending them, he attacked the policy he was signing on to! I guess leftists are inspired by such a bizarre form of 'leadership.' I suppose I don't have a PhD, so his behavior is inexplicable to people like me.

Posted by: jmpickett | December 23, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I find it amusing that his 'comeback' is built upon extending tax cuts that he railed against for years. And then, during the debate on extending them, he attacked the policy he was signing on to! And he intends to run in 2 years on defeating the policy he just signed!

I guess leftists are inspired by such a bizarre form of 'leadership.' I suppose I don't have a PhD, so his behavior is inexplicable to people like me. Unfortunately for lefties, they are only about 20-25% of the population. Many Americans look at what he's doing and scratch their heads. Almost like a guy with no executive experience before 2008 is flailing...

Posted by: jmpickett | December 23, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Obama's persistence in fighting Republican intransigence culminated in the passage of bills opposed by the Republicans. DADT repeal and the START treaty were opposed by the Republicans for purely political reasons, but with the help of a few sensible Republicans they got passed. I consider those passages victories.
The tax cut bill is a disaster for which we will pay mightily in the future. By caring about only the rich and big business the Republicans will hasten the extinction of a true middle class in this country. They will pay for the Patek Phillipe watches and Bentley motorcars of the rich with their hunger and despair, as the basic life support system of our country is dismantled, and social security is destroyed.
Enjoy the immorality of your greed.

Posted by: randy1macon | December 23, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Hmm. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. ~ Halli Casser-Jayne

Posted by: PolitiHAL | December 23, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Another great post. Right turns continues to be the first blog I look at every morning.

Posted by: cajunkate | December 23, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

The comeback is based on repealing signatory legislation from the Clinton Administration that most in the military have already accepted as needed, and a treaty limitation on nuclear weapons with a country that has a problem providing funding to maintain its own military weapons systems. Now off to Hawaii for the holidays and some golf. That will get the numbers up.

Posted by: dboyd52 | December 23, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Once again Ms. Rubin issues a proclamation based on the events of a few days.

Yes, the Dems are issuing talking points like mad. So are the Republicans, including Ms. Rubin:
"Only inside the Beltway could the passage of an arms control treaty and repeal of DADT consume so many for so long and result in such exaggerated punditry."
"They [the liberal media] also confuse legislative achievement with political success."

I have no idea whether President Obama will stage a comeback, but it's far far far too early to proclaim it one way or the other. PolitiHAL may well be right that Ms. Rubin doth protest too much here.

Posted by: MsJS | December 23, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Haha Jenny, this nonsense would be right at home in the various WaPo comment sections. You had a terrible month, honey. You were beaten back at every turn and McConnell is red-faced with shame. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas, because come January you'll actually have to do something other than screaming at everyone else for your problems.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | December 23, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Psst...your blog is an echo chamber for wingnut sore losers...pass that along...

Posted by: LABC | December 23, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

P.S. Jenny once again pens columns that can best be summed up in one word: waaaaaaaaaaaah

You'd think they could come up with someone a little less green for this assigment.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | December 23, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

"The Liberal Media Mavens" was the name of my punk band in high school.

Posted by: joshlct | December 23, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Was Jenny crying when she wrote this column?

Posted by: SmallBusiness | December 23, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse


The administration's new successes are NOT irrelevant to most Ameicans!

Just to the zionists/Israeli firsters like
Rubin.

Posted by: whistling | December 23, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse


How did she manage to get a plug in for bombing Iran
writing on this subject.
One note Rubin puffs again.

Posted by: whistling | December 23, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Charles Krauthammer
Archive | Biography | RSS Feed | Opinions Home
The new comeback kid
Don't be fooled by thin-skinned temperament; Obama is a very smart man.

"He's the guy who swindled the Republicans into giving him a $1 Trillion stimulus," acknowledged Charles Krauthammer, speaking of President Obama's come-back six weeks following a midterm shellacking. http://www.examiner.com/political-transcripts-in-national/charles-krauthammer-obama-comes-back-as-the-3r-s-swindler-video

Posted by: rcaruth | December 23, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Libs live in a dream state 99% of the time.

Posted by: FLvet | December 23, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Great article. I just saw Doug Schoen on Fox "crowing" about Obama's comeback. Somehow the left is spinning-and some conservatives like Krauthammer are buying- the myth that Obama got a stimulus because the GOP agreed to extend the Bush Tax Cuts and cut payroll taxes for FICA by 2%. I thought these were GOP ideas and that conservatives never bought into the canard that allowing current low tax rates to continue somehow added to the deficit. The real "win" during the lame duck was the defeat of the Omnibus Bill. This was the opening salvo in the all important budget wars that will be the main political issue for the next two years. If the GOP can rein in spending to 2008 levels they will have defanged the Dems and done the country a great service.

Posted by: jkk1943 | December 23, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Have you all noticed that Commentary/Contentions in general is more perceptive since JR's departure.

Obama Rebounds in December After Devastating November
Max Boot - 12.23.2010 - 10:20 AM
President Obama has had a heckuva December, especially considering how dismal his November was. Just a month after suffering a midterm-election drubbing, he has bounced back with a renewal of the Bush tax cuts, repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and now ratification of New START. Oh, and he also issued his AfPak review, which endorsed the counterinsurgency plan being implemented by General Petraeus.
It is hard to imagine a more skillful triangulation, offering something to both the right (tax cuts, toughness on the war effort) and the left (letting gays serve openly, passing an arms-control treaty). Actually, I’m not sure how left-wing even his liberal achievements are, since a number of conservatives (myself included) endorsed DADT repeal and New START passage. Considering that he is probably the most liberal occupant of the Oval Office, he has done a surprisingly good job of moving to the center, as witnessed by the Republican votes he has managed to garner on DADT and New START — votes that were notably absent when he rammed his health-care bill through Congress."

Posted by: rcaruth | December 23, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Rubin is spot on! So many in the media have become comic relief with their pin ball logic and knee jerk responses.It's a very long road to 2012...anything can happen.

Posted by: bowspray | December 23, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

well, that's a silly column.
if in politics, an hour is a lifetime, if perception is everything, and if the widespread impression is that obama has clawed back to a position of authority and action -- v. reaction -- then, qed, the game has changed. at least for now.
deal with it.

Posted by: jdayest | December 23, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

jmpickett said: "I find it amusing that his 'comeback' is built upon extending tax cuts that he railed against for years. And then, during the debate on extending them, he attacked the policy he was signing on to! . . . his behavior is inexplicable to people like me."

jmpickett, it's inexplicable to you because you don't know that facts. When you try to analyze someone's behavior based on falsehoods rather than the actual situation, it is unsuprising that their choices may look irrational.

It's true that the administration "signed on" to extending the tax cuts, but that is most certainly not what his comeback is "built upon." Obama made a concession and acquiesced to a policy he did not like, in order to get other policies pushed through (those which are the basis of the so-called comeback). It's called COMPROMISE, which used to be a core principle in our politics until right-wing purists tried to make it a dirty word.

Reasonable people can disagree as to whther these decisions are good or bad policy, depending on your point of view. But if you look at the facts and still think Obama's behavior is "inexplicable" to "people like you," well, that says a lot more about people like you than it does about his behavior.

Posted by: tomguy1 | December 23, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Jennifer forgot to mention that huge PR win for her pals,fighting aid for the 9/11ers,LOL,"its not who wins or loses,what counts is how the game is played."

Posted by: rcaruth | December 23, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

"Obamacare" -- you repeat this derogatory label presumably because it's fashionable and easier to make fun of than "health care reform." What percent of the sanctimonious scum who oppose health care reform have good to excellent health care insurance for themselves? Probably 95%. Those same woodenheads have been experiencing rising premiums each year and eroding coverages. What magic was going to come along and improve it? None! STUPID!

Posted by: pdurand | December 23, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Well, if "more perceptive" = "more liberal" than, yes, on balance, Contentions is a bit more "perceptive" now that Rubin is gone. That seems to beg the question, though.

I wish we could take more literally Rubin's final, ironic remark--nothing would be better, now, than letting the Left stew in their own fantasies. Yes, Americans are thrilled about the repeal of DADT, they have been craving a new arms agreement with Russia, they believe that Obama srtood firm against a mass amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. Why wouldn't we want the Left to be convinced of all this, and much more--won't the culmination of Obama's comeback be his brave defense of the new health care law against the Republican and conservative attempts to repeal it, undermine it, chip away at it, etc?

The only problem is that quite a few Republicans seem to believe it as well, and that's what we are going to have to work on in the new year.

Posted by: adam62 | December 23, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"Obama's legacy is irretrievably ruined if Iran gets the bomb on his watch."

Was Bush's legacy irretrievably ruined by North Korea getting the bomb on his watch?

Posted by: GebbDogg1 | December 23, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Rubin ignores a few facts inconvenient to her conclusion. Russia has already helped us with Iran thanks to Start, Obama has already signalled, as Will notes, that he is on board for Reagan like tax reform and entitlement reforms, and, most importantly, the disappointment of the far left is actually proof that Obama is accomplishing what the middle of the country actually wants.

and as Krauthammer noted, the stimulus Obama got (who cares how easily the Republicans gave in because they liked it too?) is likely to have an effect on unemployment over the next couple years.

Posted by: JoeT1 | December 23, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"Obama's legacy is irretrievably ruined if Iran gets the bomb on his watch."

Was Bush's legacy irretrievably ruined by North Korea getting the bomb on his watch?

Posted by: GebbDogg1 | December 23, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse


In the Preamble of the START Treaty, to paraphrase, it states the our missile defense cannot interfere with the Russian's missile offense. So the Russians have carte blanche while we are to remain defenseless. And I heard on the news the day BEFORE the vote on START that Russia has embarked on a new missile program.

Is this really an Obama win?

On DADT, I personally know a combat soldier who is stationed at a well-known Army Fort, who along with others, were NOT given the survey to complete. They oppose DADT. I think the Government picked and chose to whom to give the surveys.

Only the non-combat troops approved DADT. The Marines and a majority of the all combat troops oppose it.

I guess they stopped giving the surveys to the combat troops when they realized there was mounting opposition to DADT.

I guess the "liars were figuring" again.

If these are considered Obama wins, then November 2012 really can't come soon enough!

Posted by: janet8 | December 23, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Honestly, why bother? This blog perpetuates the deep partisan divide in our political discourse by casting everything in terms of winning and losing, your team and mine. For good measure, there's a completely reductionist approach to forecasting (high unemployement = poor reelection odds). Honestly---I mean this sincerely---honestly, is it that simple?

This kind of "analysis" is ubiquitous on the Internet ... if you've got a platform on the "Post", do better.

Posted by: anonymous5 | December 23, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

There are so many conceptual errors in this editorial, but let's start with this one:

"The sources of the left's delight -- repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and ratification of the New START treaty -- are irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans"
The ratification of START is not only relevant to to the majority of Americans, it's relevant to the majority of humans. We are talking about the control of the nuclear arms in the US and Russia here. I don't see what could be more relevant. Now if right wing commentators like keeping their listeners in the dark that's one thing, but START is most certainly very relevant to everybody. Unless you are somehow immune to radiation.
Then this genius Rubin continues with saying that Obama needs to "stand up to foreign adversaries (Obama's legacy is irretrievably ruined if Iran gets the bomb on his watch)."
Oh, so now suddenly she cares about nuclear weapons? Yes I know Russia is an "ally", but the point is START is still vitally important to our national security. Apparently because a Democrat ratified it it's irrelevant.

Posted by: smt123 | December 23, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Your comments conveniently leave out the nearly 1 trillion dollars in stimulus that Obama negotiated from the Republicans as well as the negative press the Republicans have received for their opposition to 9-11 responder's bill and DADT. There's a reason Lindsey Graham is complaining about having had his Republican 'clock cleaned' by Harry Reid. No, I think that the President's gains in the past month since the election have been substantial. He is seen as willing to work with Repubicans while the Repubican leaders have shown their true obstructionist colors. What is crystal clear for independents, moderates etc. is that the Repubicans have played obstructionist games and prevented legislation from moving forward to fix our problems. They obstructed bills for a month that wound up being approved unanimously or with large majorities. Leaving us to wonder, what were the Repubican goals, if not pure political gamesmanship. Long fight, but this round clearly went to Obama.

Posted by: army164 | December 23, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

This column is right on target. After January, Obama's re-election possibilities go up. Why? A Republican Congress will kock some sense into him and he'll look less like an idiot. If he looks less like an idiot, albeit with GOP help, then he doesn't look as bad. It's up to the GOP to tell everybody that 'it still is the economy stupid...and without the GOP controlling his behavior, Mr. obama would have us all in the tank'

Posted by: PanhandleWilly | December 23, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Including the word "stupid" in ALL CAPS with an exclamation point in your post really doesn't make me want to read it. But, it is, in my experience, a sure sign that the writer isn't that smart or is a democrat or is both.

Posted by: jeffdc1 | December 23, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Your comments conveniently leave out the nearly 1 trillion dollars in stimulus that Obama negotiated from the Republicans as well as the negative press the Republicans have received for their opposition to 9-11 responder's bill and DADT. There's a reason Lindsey Graham is complaining about having had his Republican 'clock cleaned' by Harry Reid. No, I think that the President's gains in the past month since the election have been substantial. He is seen as willing to work with Repubicans while the Repubican leaders have shown their true obstructionist colors. What is crystal clear for independents, moderates etc. is that the Repubicans have played obstructionist games and prevented legislation from moving forward to fix our problems. They obstructed bills for a month that wound up being approved unanimously or with large majorities. Leaving us to wonder, what were the Repubican goals, if not pure political gamesmanship. Long fight, but this round clearly went to Obama.

Posted by: army164 | December 23, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Because Jennifer doesn't feel comfortable with Business/Economics,I will help her out. This is from Bloomberg today,
"Business people love to say how much they cherish free markets, all the while decrying government that limits entrepreneurialism and personal freedom.
But the truth is there is nothing most business people like less than free markets.
Think about it. Competition is good for consumers because it keeps prices low while increasing the quality and choices of products and services. Yet competition is hard work for businesses. They have to fight for customers by innovating and evolving in ways that consumers demand."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23/why-businesses-can-t-stand-free-markets-veronique-de-rugy.html

Posted by: rcaruth | December 23, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

This "comeback" the punditry keeps talking about isn't even needed. Obama has accomplished much during his first 2 years. Most of which the talking class doesn't ever mention. If people knew (it can all be looked up very easily) no one would be talking about comebacks at all.

Posted by: bgormley1 | December 23, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

"This column is right on target. After January, Obama's re-election possibilities go up. Why? A Republican Congress will kock some sense into him and he'll look less like an idiot. If he looks less like an idiot, albeit with GOP help, then he doesn't look as bad. It's up to the GOP to tell everybody that 'it still is the economy stupid...and without the GOP controlling his behavior, Mr. obama would have us all in the tank'

Posted by: PanhandleWilly | December 23, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse "

no, reid controls what they accept from the house and if they vote on it or not...
the budget is the only legislation the senate cannot ignore from the house...
I see the goverment shutting down soon...
because reid won't pass any house legislation...
a game of chicken...

Posted by: DwightCollins | December 23, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Spin, spin, spin. Jennifer is part of the pack. Don't care, so long as some good work gets done.

Posted by: frodot | December 23, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

JENN_I_FER - another completely clueless conservative columnist can't figure out that their ideaology is completely failed and their supposed leadership is inept - how sad to go through live believing in hubrus - enjoy yourself - OBAMA is all clear for 2012 - especially when you look at the roster of LOOSERS that are being promulgated by the right - so clueless and for so LONG TOO - must be hard to continue to rationalize the hollow philosophy of the SELF - the very reason that the US is foundering right now - no vision and holding on to the past! The GOP is DOA.

Posted by: jeffRI1 | December 23, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"Obama's legacy is irretrievably ruined if Iran gets the bomb on his watch."

Was Bush's legacy irretrievably ruined by North Korea getting the bomb on his watch?

Posted by: GebbDogg1
_______

Good question. Bush43's legacy regarding a nuclear North Korea will depend on what happens in the future - but the ONE issue that Obama has been consistent on even during his short U.S. Senate tenure is nuclear non-proliferation.

One key difference is that North Korea is absolutely a client-state of China, who will not allow NoK to actually use nuclear weapons, nor bombard Seoul with conventional missiles. China's mercantile policies make NoK increasingly irrelevant to China's geo-political stature and aspirations.

A nuclear Iran however, threatens most of the world by threatening oil supply. Iran is no one's client state, although increasingly an economic hostage of China.

Obama's dilemma is that he is not feared by anyone.

Sometimes, having a warmongering cowboy as CinC is a sufficient containment strategy in itself.

Posted by: K2K2 | December 23, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Jennifer:

Just like when someone says "it's not about the money", you can be sure it's about the money.

The fact that you feel compelled to write the column says it all.

Posted by: 54465446 | December 23, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I love to see how the radical republican party gets all into a frenzy over President Obamas accomplishments. Yes the repeal was huge for success for the democrats and the president. The funding for 9/11 responders, another huge success for the democrats and the president. The START treaty another big one and yest these fools on the right just don't get it. You know the *START* treaty had a majority of americans supporting it and the same with the repeal of DADT and so. The president took the republicans to task, whipped em' and came out looking like a real champion for the people. The republicans, looked like a bunch of grumpy old men whose anger and bitterness made them look foolish and out of touch. Many Americans will have buyers remorse when the republicans take over, americans will be like " why the hell did we do vote these fools back in for"? Yes, republicans get ready for another schooling...

Posted by: Realistic5 | December 23, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I love to see how the radical republican party gets all into a frenzy over President Obamas accomplishments. Yes the repeal was huge for success for the democrats and the president. The funding for 9/11 responders, another huge success for the democrats and the president. The START treaty another big one and yest these fools on the right just don't get it. You know the *START* treaty had a majority of americans supporting it and the same with the repeal of DADT and so. The president took the republicans to task, whipped em' and came out looking like a real champion for the people. The republicans, looked like a bunch of grumpy old men whose anger and bitterness made them look foolish and out of touch. Many Americans will have buyers remorse when the republicans take over, americans will be like " why did we do vote these fools back in for"? Yes, republicans get ready for another schooling...

Posted by: Realistic5 | December 23, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

If you ask me, he has made a comeback. How and why he did it, is another story for sure.

Anyone who spends time "appeasing" his detractors and opponents, while sacrificing some of their own principles and beliefs, is definitely someone who has made a comeback.

That's the one greatest thing about this Republic and democracy and that is, it can't be all one way, no way, or take the hi-way. It's about give and take. A little here, a little there.

It's not all Conservative, nor is it all Liberal.

And not everything in this world is painted with broad brush of Black and White, as some would so like for it to be.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | December 23, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

With African Americans only making up about 13% of the US population, would Ms. Rubin argue that integration of the Armed Forces by President Truman or passge of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s was "irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans"? I am "getting whiplash" watching Ms. Rubin follow the Republican talking points on President Obama.

Posted by: SouthernerInDC | December 23, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Poor Jenn, so sad, too bad !

Posted by: Sharpjohng | December 23, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

LMAO****I should of hit the preview button first******LMAO****

Posted by: Realistic5 | December 23, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

LMAO****I should of hit the preview button first******LMAO****

Posted by: Realistic5 | December 23, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Well, this columnist is just silly, and so relentlessly biased that I'm surprised to see her column in the Post. it rightly belongs on Fox News, the Republican propaganda channel.

And, success or a "comeback" for a Democratic President is hardly to be assessed on her (Republican) terms: cut domestic programs, rework entitlement program, et al.

As for Obama's legacy being "irretrievable ruined if Iran gets the bomb on his watch," do conservatives consider George Bush's legacy irretrievably ruined because North Korea exploded a nuclear bomb on his watch, and thumbed it's nose at the US for eight years?

Posted by: posterchild90 | December 23, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Well said. And the other point the lamestream media's breathless comeback narrative elides? For now the guy still has huge majorities in both houses — he SHOULD be getting his stuff through!

The real story is how he frittered away his two most powerful years — and let himself get outmaneuvered by the likes of McConnell.

Oh, but we're going to have buggery in the barracks, so all is forgiven.

Posted by: thebump | December 23, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

You are easy to pick on Ms. Rubin because you are so partisan. Yes, Obama is the comeback kid. Perhaps you should take the time to read the editorials from you own conservative colleagues, like Mr. Krauthammer.

The best part of Obama's comeback is watching Mitch McConnell and John Boehner go up in flames. Obama takes them out. The Republican strategy of petulance and "no!" backfired because in the end the American people sided with Obama. Let's see here, Obama has 46% approval rating vs. Congress with a 13% approval rating, which is a direct result of Republican strategies to put partisan agendas before the American people. Shame on them. They get what they deserve. They are toast and left sucking wind.

Posted by: citizen4truth1 | December 23, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for bringing sanity to the asylum known as The Washington Post, Ms. Rubin.

Yours and Dr. Krauthammer's columns are a welcome does of reality amid the insane liberal paeans of most of the rest of the op-ed staff.

You two and the sudoku puzzle are about the only good reasons to visit this site anymore.

And now that Wilbon is gone, even the Sports page sucks.

Posted by: etpietro | December 23, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Don't call it a comeback - if you don't want to. But the fact remains that this was one of the most productive lame duck legislative sessions in recent history. Many people thought that Obama would get nothing after the midterms. Instead, he got the best deals anyone could have gotten.
Maybe Obama is benefiting from lowered expectations. But expectations were unusually high for his first two years, so the American public and press might simply be returning to a more realistic notion of what a president can do.

Posted by: am94891 | December 23, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Wow, what soar grapes. Hope Jennifer has a good holiday, but she sounded really bummed!

Posted by: rschaeffer1 | December 23, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Ms. Rubin, but this is classic sour grapes. If New START, DADT repeal and the other legislation that passed this month are so trivial, then why did the GOP fight so hard to prevent them from even coming to a vote? I also have real trouble imagining that Republicans would resist the temptation to gloat if they had managed to block them.

Plus, these bills MATTER--and substantively, not just procedurally. So yes, their passage is a feather in the president's cap (and Democrats') and a defeat for the GOP. I know that's painful to admit, but it's the truth.

Posted by: DCSteve1 | December 23, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I can't recall hearing a single person I've talked to chat about the DADT and START issues. For most people they are simply small-time issues which have next to no impact on their day-to-day lives. Ms. Rubin is correct in saying that the economy (and by association regulation, etc) is the top thing on the minds of virtually everyone outside of DC, almost to the exclusion of everything else. START is kind of an esoteric subject that only 'experts' really understand the finer details of. And while the morality of being gay is still a matter of division for many people at this point few confuse that moral decision with a persons patriotism and desire to serve their country in the military, and most see serving in the military as a VERY honorable decision to make.

Posted by: cleveyoung | December 23, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

More "intellectual consistency" from Ms. Rubin.

If it doesn't fit your world view, make up your own narrative.

Posted by: mikem1 | December 23, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for bringing sanity to the asylum known as The Washington Post, Ms. Rubin.

Yours and Dr. Krauthammer's columns are a welcome does of reality amid the insane liberal paeans of most of the rest of the op-ed staff.

You two and the sudoku puzzle are about the only good reasons to visit this site anymore.

And now that Wilbon is gone, even the Sports page sucks.

Posted by: etpietro | December 23, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse
-------------------------------------------
So you are saying you don't read the news? You are forming all your political opinions by reading the editorials and opinion pages?
No wonder you have your notions of what is sane. Try reading articles first and then opinion pieces.

Posted by: smt123 | December 23, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"But as long as the left wants to succumb to conservatives on the issues that voters care most about -- taxes and spending -- I suppose conservatives should keep mum. So let's keep this just between us."

Ummm, I thought the November election was about reducing spending and lowering the deficit. The first thing Republicans did was block all legislation until they got over $800 added to the deficit in the next 2 years.

The Republicans all like to shout about listening to the will of the voters. The funniest thing is they completely ignored the will of the voters from 2008; trying to block everything the victors from 2008 tried to do. And now they ignore the will of the voters again (from the Nov elections) by adding a lot to the deficit.

Real nice and typical Republican hypocrites.

Posted by: ejwenger | December 23, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I agree the START treaty is something only wonks care about. It's not really a Democratic victory, but it's a personal accomplishment for Obama. DADT is a victory for "liberals" hence for the Dems as a whole.

So to be fair, Dems/Obama did win a couple of victories. But I agree with the this article, that on balance, these are small victories

Posted by: JS11 | December 23, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

To please Rubin, Obama would have to grind up the unemployed and make them into Soylent Green to feed the poodles of the ultra rich.

Posted by: Jihm | December 23, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Democrat-controlled federal, state and large city governments are financially broke, and would have to declare bankruptcy were they private, while the media pack in DC and NY are heralding the passage of DADT. Can you imagine the laughter that exists in the offices of the Chinese and Russian circles. They are surprised and elated that the U.S. is led by such clueless morons like Obama and the Dem leadership who have willingly led the United States to third world status. They probably helped the Dems pursue their goals but they didn't need to work hard to achieve the result. Democrats are so easily distracted by irrelevant issues.

Ultimately, debt and deficits have to come face to face with arithmetic. Not so with shallow, feel good issues the Dems like to loudly applaud, which is why liberals ignore the difficult in order to pursue the opposite, all for short term gains at the expense of this country. I have no arguments with gays or Blacks other than their celebrity causes have helped to greatly control a Democrat party to focus on them and other social issues at great peril to the very existence of the nation that guarantees their current and future freedom.

Folks, by ignoring our financial condition and ignoring how we got here (government getting into unconstitutional giveaway programs) we are headed toward a national collapse where social issues will be completely irrelevant. Wake up Liberals. You may think the financial issues are Republican and therefore unimportant, but if we all lose in that domain, you lose even the freedom to discuss the other issues you so dearly love to shout about.

Posted by: Art11 | December 23, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

You and I certainly live in different universes. What was passed certainly DOES matter to US citizens.

As for the DREAM act, it is an utter disgrace that it was not passed.

Now for the health care reform: It is NOT called ObamaCare as you "righties" like to call it. Do some homework.

Now let's discuss the debt: The GOP thumped their collective chests at the thought of unfunded unemployment coverage but didn't even blink when it came to extending the tax cuts to the very wealthy at a cost of about $700B over the next 10 years. Hypocrites!

Posted by: repmisc | December 23, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Finally, a writer at the Post who does not drink the kool-aid. Thank you, Ms. Rubin. The rest of the press can fall right in line with the "comeback kid" motif, but surely even Obama himself sees how any comeback might happen: adopt conservative economic policy. And if the Left Press wants to skip and hop with glee about a silly DADT, let them. And if Democrats think that DADT sort of things will win elections, I hope Spielberg has some new tricks up his sleeve.

Posted by: jpfann | December 23, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Randy1Macon,

I'm a small business owner. My company made $4.27 million last year. I paid nearly $1.4 million dollars in federal taxes alone. That is one dollar for every 1.4 MILLION people, probably like you, who paid...wait for it - ZERO! - nothing in taxes. I employ 32 people at an average salary of $58,000. These are people with houses, children in college, car payments, medical bills - you name it. How do they pay for these things? Through the hard work they provide me and the money and health care I provide them in return. You can rail against the "greedy rich". When all is said and done, after making payroll, paying taxes (local, county, federal), providing health insurance, rent, inventory, and every expense we business owners are responsible for I cleared exactly $273,000. In pocket for my family and I. Sorry if paying the government nearly $1.5 million and providing work for 32 Americans and having the audacity to make 270 grand is offensive to you. What is offensive to me is that you and people like you DON'T!

*spit*

Posted by: cartmaneric | December 23, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, the press is nothing but a game.

Obama's comeback is caving into the Republicans, once again?

Posted by: beenthere3 | December 23, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"Obama may yet stage a comeback. But to do that, he'll have to do what the left loathes -- cut domestic programs, rework entitlement programs, stand up to foreign adversaries (Obama's legacy is irretrievably ruined if Iran gets the bomb on his watch), cut back on growth-restricting regulations and keep tax rates low"

Unfortunately,you saved the motivation for your blog for last. It would've been nice if I'd known from the start that reading it would be a waste of my time. Anybody who believes these idiotic Republican talking points and utterly catastrophic Republican tax policy is the key to reelection for a Democratic President is not worth reading.

Posted by: paranoid36 | December 23, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Jenny Rubin, blubbering her way through yet another denial column. Pathetic.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | December 23, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Judging from the sour-grapes comments here, there are a lot of right wingnuts who care a great deal about the repeal of DADT. Gee, that's tough. Liberals will have a Merry Xmas; Rubin & her Repub/bagger masters, not so much.

The issues that will determine the outcome of the races in '12 likely haven't even occurred yet. So trying to predict what will happen next year or beyond is a fool's game. Predict away, Rubin, it's a game you're well-suited for.

Posted by: nyskinsdiehard | December 23, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

So after the rant against Obama, Ms. Rubin proposes a more "sensible" agenda -- "cut back on growth-restricting regulations and keep tax rates low."

Memo to Ms. Rubin -- we've done this before. It was called the Bush II presidency. It led to massive fiscal deficits and near economic collapse that was staved off by government intervention. That fact doesn't fit your narrative. But nobody with a brain or a memory of the past ten years would hand you the keys to the economy on that prescription.

Posted by: peterodriscoll | December 23, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Sorry if paying the government nearly $1.5 million and providing work for 32 Americans and having the audacity to make 270 grand is offensive to you. What is offensive to me is that you and people like you DON'T!

*spit*

Posted by: cartmaneric | December 23, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

===

As someone who has started multiple successful businesses, I understand what you are saying - still, this Republican notion of generous tax cuts while only providing lip service to program cuts is lunacy.

Someone has to pay. Who is it going to be?

Posted by: mikem1 | December 23, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Echoing earlier comments on the author's love affair with invective buzzwords (see: "ObamaCare"), have a guess at who declared these lofty aspirations: "What do I believe in? . . . calling things by their proper names (e.g. Islamic fundamentalism) , and recapturing vocabulary (a "feminist" is not the same as a pro-choice activist)."

I don't think this schtick is going to cut it in this forum...

Posted by: Goombay | December 23, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

cartmaneric: How do you & your poor family survive on your meager wages? Have you applied for food stamps?

Your attitude of entitlement & bitterness is exactly what turns people off. Grow up, nobody cares about you not being wealthier. You make a profit off the labor of your employees, & that's why you hired them, not out of the goodness of your spoiled heart.

Posted by: nyskinsdiehard | December 23, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

It's amusing to see what short memories the lefty WaPo readers have. Never in our history has a lame duck Congress ratified a treaty without hearings. Fortunately, it is meaningless and only the lifetime anti-nukes care about it. Seven weeks ago, the Democrats suffered a stunning defeat. It is already forgotten by their supporters but they will be reminded after January 4. Next year is going to be very interesting and might even see the rescue of our republic.

Posted by: mtkennedy | December 23, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

jkk wrote:

"Obama got a stimulus because the GOP agreed to extend the Bush Tax Cuts and cut payroll taxes for FICA by 2%. I thought these were GOP ideas and that conservatives never bought into the canard that allowing current low tax rates to continue somehow added to the deficit."

Boy are you confused! The GOP wanted to cut the EMPLOYER side of payroll taxes, not the employee side (not that it will make much difference to the economy)

Furthermore, estimates vary but about 400- 500 billion is the amount added to the deficit over the next two years by the tax cuts.

This was recognized, even by Eric Cantor in August of this year:

"[I]f you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper. But you also have to understand, if the priority is to get people back to work, is to start growing this economy again, uh, then you don't wanna make it more expensive for job creators"

AND by now less of a financial genius than Michele Bachmann in a CNN interview:

"BACHMANN: And remember it's a deficit to government but it's not a deficit to people who get to keep their money. So it's how you frame it. I don't think letting people keep their own money should be considered a deficit.

ROBERTS: But it is, though, because it adds to the federal deficit.

BACHMANN: No, you're right about that, John, that it is to the government, but remember what we could also be doing right now: Cutting back on spending. We've had the biggest increase in spending in the last two years that anyone can remember in modern times. We can also cut back spending to that level and that's not on the table right now."


Looking forward to having you weigh in again on a subject you're uh . . . a little more familiar with!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 23, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Just indicates that a good portion of the media establishment play to the other side as it were. He does them a favor (DADT repeal) and they start saying nice things in the press. It's all bull anyway. The guy is going down with the economy. His top down orientation and stimulus programs are not working and everyone knows it. Kinda stupid reall beging oligarchs to hire the serfs. If they treated the surfs nicely they wouldn't be oligarchs then would they.

Posted by: jhadv | December 23, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Republicans did not do themselves any favors here. The opposition they put up to the START treaty, tax cuts for the middle class, DADT, and the 9/11 first responders bill often made them look like petulant two-year-olds whining when they didn't get their way. Obama got plenty of achievements he can tout, and which, contrary to this author's opinion, plenty of people DO care about - Republicans, apart from tax breaks for their wealthy friends (and donors), got a lot of bad PR.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | December 23, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

mt kennedy wrote:

"It's amusing to see what short memories the lefty WaPo readers have. Never in our history has a lame duck Congress ratified a treaty without hearings. Fortunately, it is meaningless and only the lifetime anti-nukes care about it. Seven weeks ago, the Democrats suffered a stunning defeat. It is already forgotten by their supporters but they will be reminded after January 4."

1) You're absolutely right about START which means nothing.

2)That just goes to show Dems heal faster than Reps who took at least a year to get over their much more stunning defeat in 2008. (which giving credit where credit is due they did in record time!)

Posted by: 54465446 | December 23, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to President Obama on his well earned successes. The author should perhaps read the article she wrote to realize the amount of bitterness being spewed out.
God Bless her.

Posted by: jprabkrn | December 23, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

I have yet to make sense of anything Rubin writes.Rambling, with poor sentence structure, I have to reread sections to even get a basic understanding of the point she is trying to make. In addition, she writes like a high schooler with little knowledge of the subject, and the need to fill pages.
Today, she tells us the vast majority of Americans have little interest in START and DADT. Really? I believe this majority, who emailed and called their Senators in droves, and left thousands of passionate comments weren't aware they had no interest.
Honestly, she is more out of touch than the politicians.

Posted by: alyd69 | December 23, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"...a public that has never "learned" to love the bill."

You're wrong, Jen. The public will love it when it learns that taxpayers end up paying less when those who can afford health care are required to have it. I wonder, does there exist people, other than for religious reasons, who wouldn't want health care if they could afford it?

I think not.

My brother is Canadian. He pays into their health care system. He's had two surgeries in the past 6 years. I asked him, 'Do you feel less free because you're paying into a nationalized health care system?' His response: 'LOL'.

Posted by: petesnydero | December 23, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Let's see if I understand this correctly. Obama caved on tax cuts for the rich - "great victory scream liberal MSM", republicans say nothing, I breathe a sigh of relief; democrats cave on a bloated omnibus bill - "great victory scream the liberal MSM, republicans say nothing, another sigh of relief; republicans lose the vote on DADT - great victory screams the liberal MSM, republicans say we were taken to the cleaners, I say "say what?"; senate retifies the START treaty, democrats say great victory; republicans say again we got taken to the cleaners, I say we have so many treaties now I can't keep up with them. I think there is some intellectual flim flam going on here. Only in America and only with our politicians and media!

Posted by: fcrucian | December 23, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Let's see:

Health Care Reform
Finance Reform
Stimulus
Repeal of 'Don't ask, Don't tell'
START Treaty
Health Bill for 9/11 Workers
Tax Cut Bill

In less than 2 years. The last 3 in two weeks.

Love it or leave it, that's more significant legislation in 2 years than in the past 50.

Posted by: petesnydero | December 23, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

dear idiots claiming "victory" on

obamacare, finance reform, stimulus, start....

they may be "political" victories, but they are all loses for actual citizens.

but left continues to "brag" about it's failures.... sickening.

Posted by: docwhocuts | December 23, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it! The left wing press will now be desperate to resurrect Obama going into 2012! If Obama shows that he can chew gum and walk at the same time it will be touted as the best thing to happen to the country since sliced bread! And there is a good chance with Republicans now in charge of the House, and the tax cuts extended that business will be confident enough to start to spend and invest again. We may end up with a Republican Recovery! And you know who the left wing media will credit for it?

Posted by: valwayne | December 23, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's chances of re-election remain poor."

Say what? What planet are you living on, Jennifer Rubin? Most polls show Obama beating any Republican by a healthy margin, and the field of potential Republican challengers looks extremely weak. Granted, it's early and things could change, but with the economic recovery picking up speed they're at least as likely to change in Obama's favor as against him. Despite persistent high unemployment and somewhat diminished job approval ratings, President Obama remains by far the most popular political figure on the national scene. I'd rate his odds of being re-elected as strongly favorable right now, at least 60-40, possibly more.

Posted by: bradk1 | December 23, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

So wrong. The Bammer slammed you conservative folks home. Wham!

Posted by: dudh | December 23, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Obozo was a dismal failure and it's only going to get worse. To bad he will, in his incompetent arrogance, he will inflict more damage on America before being fired in 22 months.

Posted by: carlbatey | December 23, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

What's been underreported is the fact that Obama and the left have lost the argument on basic economic policy.

Not long ago, Obama was claiming to be morally opposed to extending the tax cuts for upper-income Americans ... and wanted us to believe that blowing an $800 billion hole in the federal budget would keep unemployment under 8%.

Now, Obama's own economic advisers are explaining why raising taxes could trigger another recession. And "Keynesian stimulus" is about as popular as athlete's foot.

Add that to the failure of the pork-laden omnibus bill, and you've got a conservative victory that could not be more complete if Karl Marx appeared on Fox News to promote capitalism.

Posted by: UponFurtherReview | December 23, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

i bet a whole crop of military people who quit because of these idiots ,runs for elected office. the best of the best. no rino's or sniveling liberals will be able to stand up to their backbone. get rid of the libs in 2012.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | December 23, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

It's amusing to see what short memories the lefty WaPo readers have. Never in our history has a lame duck Congress ratified a treaty without hearings. Fortunately, it is meaningless and only the lifetime anti-nukes care about it. Seven weeks ago, the Democrats suffered a stunning defeat. It is already forgotten by their supporters but they will be reminded after January 4. Next year is going to be very interesting and might even see the rescue of our republic.

Posted by: mtkennedy | December 23, 2010 12:54 PM
______________________________________

Typical moronic right-wing blathering. If you had been paying attention you would have realized that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Armed Service Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a total of 20 hearings and 4 briefings. (7 hearings and 3 briefings were held by the Armed Services Committee.) Only in moronic right-wing minds do 20 hearings and 4 briefings equal ZERO. As is far too often the case, the right wing jerks feel that if they say something long enough and loud enough it is true. Bottom line MTKennedy, your information is entirely, factually incorrect. Happy Holidays, for Christmas perhaps ask someone to provide you a news reading service so you can keep up with reality versus whatever source you currently use to remain current.

Posted by: army164 | December 23, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

a whole bunch of karl marxs' appeared on fox. on the glenn beck show. thats why the house is gone. and if these criminals would hve passed all this crap before the election,the senate would be gone too. get rid of the libs in 2012.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | December 23, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

A few quick points.

President Obama did not so much win as the nation won.

The fact that all this legislation EASILY sailed to victory as son as filibusters were stopped PROVES beyond any doubt that republcons were in fact holding the nation hostage.

Now that President Obama has run the table on neary the entirety of his agenda in the last two years, and now that republicons hold on house and larger proportion of the other, they have to DO SOMETHING. No more slurpies mitch. boner - you have to stop cryin and wetting yourself and DO SOMETHING -- and not the crazy tea-oh pee insanity that bachman and toomey and the other teahadists want because their ideas would essentially end the United States, but REAL tings that will impriove the nation and our people.

See you in January! Time for you to put up on all your brilliant ideas. Can't wait to see what squeeks out between the tears and how many new words republicons can learn since a one word vocabulary of "NO" is simply not an option any more.

Posted by: John1263 | December 23, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

A few quick points.

President Obama did not so much win as the nation won.

The fact that all this legislation EASILY sailed to victory as son as filibusters were stopped PROVES beyond any doubt that republcons were in fact holding the nation hostage.

Now that President Obama has run the table on neary the entirety of his agenda in the last two years, and now that republicons hold on house and larger proportion of the other, they have to DO SOMETHING. No more slurpies mitch. boner - you have to stop cryin and wetting yourself and DO SOMETHING -- and not the crazy tea-oh pee insanity that bachman and toomey and the other teahadists want because their ideas would essentially end the United States, but REAL tings that will impriove the nation and our people.

See you in January! Time for you to put up on all your brilliant ideas. Can't wait to see what squeeks out between the tears and how many new words republicons can learn since a one word vocabulary of "NO" is simply not an option any more.

Posted by: John1263 | December 23, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

What's with all the hurtful comments? It's like people need to chill out, and stop being so threatened by one another's ideas.

Posted by: dcdude3 | December 23, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

What's with all the snippy comments? It's like people need to chill out, and stop being so threatened by one another's ideas.

Posted by: dcdude3 | December 23, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Extended Bush tax cuts, no amnesty for illegals, no cap & trade, Guantanamo forever, long term Afghanistan commitment, and now going all Sarah Palin on the polar bears. Kind of hard to keep score. So did Obama or McCain get elected?

Posted by: Wonderingaloud999 | December 23, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse


"Obama's legacy is irretrievably ruined if Iran gets the bomb on his watch."

Was Bush's legacy irretrievably ruined by North Korea getting the bomb on his watch?

Posted by: GebbDogg1


HILARIOUS!!!
How much OIL does Korea have?
How much profit can military contractor-friends of the Administration make, working in Korea?

Geesh!


Posted by: wcmillionairre | December 23, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

the sad point of obummer's come back,will be that the people that voted him in,in the first place, have not learned anything in two year's. they will be dumb enough to listen to his bull,and will be voted back in.. I sure hope not, but people just don't learn,until he throw's them under the bus,, but it's comming..even more that he already has...

Posted by: newland65 | December 23, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The moonbats balk at calling Obamacare Obamacare. (They can impose it, but they won't own it.)

Fine. We'll call it Messiahcare.

Posted by: thebump | December 23, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Could you please repeat the Republican accomplishments the last decade. Say again I can't hear you. That's right their aren't any. Oh I did forget you did expand Medicare substantially and you are now blaming on the Democrats. You won in Iraq. What did we win? You passed the Bush tax cuts and turned surplus into deficits but that's the Democrats fault because you are the fiscal conservative party. North Korea became a nuclear power during Bush and Pakistan under Clinton and nobody remembers or ever brings it up.

Posted by: chucko2 | December 23, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Extended Bush tax cuts, no amnesty for illegals, no cap & trade, Guantanamo forever, long term Afghanistan commitment, and now going all Sarah Palin on the polar bears. Kind of hard to keep score. So did Obama or McCain get elected?

Posted by: Wonderingaloud999 | December 23, 2010 2:56 PM
___________________________________

Yup, McCain certainly would have pushed DADT repeal, TARP, bailout of auto industry, payroll tax cuts in 2009 and now again in 2011, an Afghanistan review and drawdown to begin in summer 2012, financial system reform, health care reform, food safety law, two progressive SC justices, etc. Yeah I certainly understand your confusion, McCain and Obama are so close in their approaches to life and governnance. Guess you wanted the whole loaf. I on the other hand will accept the modest disappointment at what did occur over what I am sure would have been my open distress of what would have been with a President McCain.

Posted by: army164 | December 23, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Barracks buggery with a special big bohica from Putin — some accomplishment!

Posted by: thebump | December 23, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Barracks buggery with a special big bohica from Putin — some accomplishment!

Is this Professor A. Alsamov?

Posted by: rcaruth | December 23, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

12genamerican wrote:

"i bet a whole crop of military people who quit because of these idiots ,runs for elected office. the best of the best."

Well I hope you're right because that would indeed be good news for Democrats.

If there was anything that the Bush Administration in particular and the Republican party in general does NOT attract it's politicians who are military veterans!

Can't wait to add to the ranks of current members such as Jim Webb, John Kerry, Daniel Inouye, Tom Harkin, Frank Lautenberg, Jack Reed, Joe Sestak, Patrick Murphy, Charlie Rangel, Leonard Boswell, among many others who I am no doubt leaving out. Please note the above were all at least active duty veterans, not National Guard, and many of them combat veterans.

This would be an excellent subject for a post Jennifer. How did the party of such incredibly distinguished military veterans such as George H W Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain, turn into the party of cowards and chickenhawks like Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Mitch McConnell?

Posted by: 54465446 | December 23, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

While it's true that we are only at the mid-way point in Obama's presidency,it reminds me of the home team scoring a momentum changing touchdown before the half with the clock running down to zero - on a turn-over inside the red zone. That's a 14 point swing in football, and it can serve as a game-changer in politics.

We shall see if the American public will grow tired of the Republican obstructionist tactics during the next two years. After all, at some point they are going to have to do something proactive.

Posted by: rbrent516 | December 23, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

@Jennifer Rubin - You're a retard and an idiot.

Posted by: cholly85241 | December 23, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Dear Ms. Rubin,

Please stop helping the liberals by letting them know how foolish they are!!!

You column is the only reason I go to the Washington Post.

Posted by: JocBAlt | December 23, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, there's substance and there's "flash and dash".

Conservatives got substance and liberals got flash and dash from the lame duck session.

DADT and START were givens; they were going to happen, in this congress/month or the next congress/month/later.

Taxes and the omnibus bill are substance; DREAM Act also, which is worthy, in my opinion, of being a provision of immigration reform but not worthy of being a stand alone "camel's nose in the tent" law.

Posted by: oparoberts | December 23, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, there's substance and there's "flash and dash".

Conservatives got substance and liberals got flash and dash from the lame duck session.

DADT and START were givens; they were going to happen, in this congress/month or the next congress/month/later.

Taxes and the omnibus bill are substance; DREAM Act also, which is worthy, in my opinion, of being a provision of immigration reform but not worthy of being a stand alone "camel's nose in the tent" law.

Posted by: oparoberts | December 23, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, there's substance and there's "flash and dash".

Conservatives got substance and liberals got flash and dash from the lame duck session.

DADT and START were givens; they were going to happen, in this congress/month or the next congress/month/later.

Taxes and the omnibus bill are substance; DREAM Act also, which is worthy, in my opinion, of being a provision of immigration reform but not worthy of being a stand alone "camel's nose in the tent" law.

Posted by: oparoberts | December 23, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

All this chatter about Obama “the comeback kid” derives from a remark made by Charles Krauthammer made a week or so ago. Naturally the Liberal media simply loved it and have been reveling in it ever since. If they could ever set aside their Kool-aid and sober up they would at least stand a chance of figuring out that Charles has set them and Obama up. Obama, the creature of the Liberal media, is still a crummy politician, a no-account leader, an academic with not a whit of executive talent, and incapable piloting a Lobster boat to say nothing of the ship of state. Charles knows all of this and is preparing them for their next pratfall.

Posted by: nvjma | December 23, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Good column- like a breath of fresh air, the unmasking of liberal bias in the media is always so refreshing!

Posted by: JoeatJVMI | December 23, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, there's substance and there's "flash and dash".

Conservatives got substance and liberals got flash and dash from the lame duck session.

DADT and START were givens; they were going to happen, in this congress/month or the next congress/month/later.

Taxes and the omnibus bill are substance; DREAM Act also, which is worthy, in my opinion, of being a provision of immigration reform but not worthy of being a stand alone "camel's nose in the tent" law.

Posted by: oparoberts | December 23, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The Sole Reason Obama an Pelosi Scheemed to pass The New Health Care Bill into effect. Was to exempt themselfs from it an also exempt the Rich Elite not paying one single cent for it. It will be soley on the Working Class Backs. The Bush Tax Cuts saved their sorry butts an crucified the Working to pay all the Taxes an the Cost for New Health Care Bill. America Damn it stand up or we are finished as America. Employers won't be able to afford it an we won't be able to afford the New Health care rates period. REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL or Kick them all out of office!

Posted by: JWTX | December 23, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Wow. It's a testament to the WaPo readership's progressive makeup that so many of the people posting here can manage nothing better than smug mockery of Rubin's dismissal of the "comeback kid" cotton candy being spun out with glee by the (generally) liberal media. Pundits of the right warned a year ago, with Obama back on his heels, that the press was chomping at the bit and would find the earliest possible opportunity to write the comeback-kid story.

It was delayed while he committed gaffe after gaffe, projected incompetence and personal arrogance in nearly every situation, behaved like an intemperate child toward the opposition, and finally was pounded in absentia in the November elections. Obama and Obamacare -- yes, that's the appropriate term for discussions like this one, because it accomplishes almost nothing in the way of real "health care reform" -- were rejected. He and his team are desperately trying to cast that as a message that people want politicians to "work together," but that begs the question: your team got beaten soundly -- what were you doing before that people disliked so much?

So what's the lame-duck scorecard? Granted, his capitulation on extending the Bush tax rates for those earning above $250K was clever -- because he ultimately doesn't give a damn about those rates and the deficits they may generate, but was bitter only because he's a redistributionist at heart. He got billions in the pork that he and politicians of both parties wanted, and he got to play the part of the compromiser (though he couldn't let the moment pass without a disgraceful outburst at the people who'd just given him his legislative prize). The Omnibus spending bill: a deserved defeat for spendthrift Dems, but ask the man on the street and he won't have heard that news anywhere. The DREAM Act: keep plugging on this cynical vote buy, Mr. President. After all, it isn't about winning - it's about a false accusation that Republicans are anti-immigrant.

Now, what of Rubin's point? Yes, she might have acknowledged that Obama at least had the political savvy to garner positive headlines. But DADT is a giant "who cares" to the voting public. Obama already had the young and gay voters to whom this was exciting. The "base" was always going to be energized to defend their Chosen One in 2012. New START? Gimme a break. So we and the Russians are trimming the number of number warheads from some number I don't comprehend to some other number I don't comprehend. Meanwhile, Obama prostrates America's missile defense at the feet of a Russian administration that's not too far short of a grand criminal enterprise, and outwardly antagonistic to our strategic aims in Iran, N Korea, Venezuela, and every other patch of earth.

Bottom line, Rubin's main point here is right. The "major accomplishments" are blips, and barring a black swan, the economy is what really matters. Independents will decide 2012. Ask them what they think about this palaver.

Posted by: Imperfections | December 23, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Goodness, this Rubin is a whiner. Who is she, anyway?

Of course there's been a "come back" for President Obama. Stop moaning.

Posted by: binkynh | December 23, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes far right Rubin, your GOP heroes should be dancing a gig over the Dream Act failing to get enough votes in the Senate. They only just cost themselves any hope of getting New Mexico, Colorado or Nevada back in the Presidential Election two years from now. How do you say "short sighted" en Espanol?

Posted by: teach722001 | December 23, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Great take! I really enjoy reading your column, Jennifer.

Posted by: jetfan85 | December 23, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

This guy won Presidency by campaigning against Bush: Iraq war & Tax cuts.

After the November 2 shellacking he changes religion and fights for the same bad Bush policy: tax cuts for the Rich!

Clinton signs the DADT.
Obama is undoing it.

All of a sudden, Obama is a comeback kid!

Very entertaining.

Posted by: vatodio | December 23, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Of course the press is calling it a comeback. If you're not a sniveling Obama sycophant, you risk being labeled a "right wing nut". That's very un-cool in journalistic circles. It's almost as uncool as being un-professional. Almost.

Posted by: HughJassPhD | December 23, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Let's see: we have MSNBC, The Times, The Post and thousands of liberal Journol-lists being PR people for the Bamster and now he has VICTORY, COMEBACK KID APHORISMS APPLIED TO HIM. Yipe. Does no one think about the horrid policies that the majority Dems passed with RINO and losing REPS from Nov. 2 passing? DADT, no one cares out in the hinterlands. START, weakens America while our real enemies like Iran, N.Korea, the Chi-Coms and other crazed Islamofascists are not held to this dumb treaty. The Dream ACT failed thankfully. The Omnibus Bill failed, thankfully. The Tax cuts were extended but Pubs will have to do more in 2011 to overcome the Dem socialists and the wuss in the WH. And now the Messiah is Back?????? Puleeze. No one on Nov. 2 voted for any of these policies. They wanted cuts in the Govt, spending, taxes, regs, and a strong border and energy policy which showed our domestic reserves and military superiority. The naif in the WH gave us nothing but boy howdy, the MSM sure loves him. So do our enemies. Oh and there was so called Net neutrality. Do voters think that is VICTORY???

Posted by: phillyfanatic | December 23, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Hi Jennifer, I was an ardent reader of your columns at Commentary and it's nice to see that The Post now has you here, smart move on their part. I have been avoiding internet videos of Charles Krauthammer for the past two or so weeks and I've temporarily stopped watching my beloved Special Report with Bret Baier until the body snatchers return Charles' body; just kidding. I greatly respect and admire Dr. K but on this one I must disagree with him; how can a President who basically threw a fit during his press conference announcing the tax deal with the Republicans whom he labeled "hostage takers" now be the Cicero of our time? Notice how every left leaning commentator now mention Charles's comments as the Raison d'être of the President's comeback. I was frustrated with the liberal media before the November "shellacking" but now I'm amused. I now understand what Rush says when he describes "liberalism as based on emotion and not substance". Can you watch the events of the last couple of weeks and disagree? Once again welcome and kudos to the Post for giving us a "true conservative".

Posted by: julian77 | December 23, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Excellent points! Rubin may soon become a Tier 1 conservative commentator among such greats as Buckley and Krauthammer.

Posted by: Buddyg04 | December 23, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Pssssst He did make a comeback HAHAHA Don't be a hater. ahahah Oh ok Jennifer we will believe you because YOU posted it. Your just jealous because he has made a comeback and it scares you. Don't be so juvenilia This isn't a High School Pep rally. He and his administration has accomplished more in a Lame Duck session than anyone has in decades. Your Right turn just landed you in a ditch. Psssst he made a

Posted by: Strongwmn | December 23, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Pssst... don't bother whispering... you're in the teabagger right wing echo chamber

Posted by: nyskinsfan | December 23, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Of course, Will is also a Tier 1 commentator. His A+ in grammar, diction, and style sometimes distracts this reader from his A+ in substance, though. And while I'm covering the bases, Limbaugh is Tier 1 too. He has never been fooled by a liberal or discouraged by a setback.

Posted by: Buddyg04 | December 23, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

ahahahaha ... Krauthammer "tier 1" and "greats"... I don't know where the tea party label comes from. You guys drink lots and lots of KOOL AID served up by Rush and Beck... and I guess Krauthammer too.

Posted by: nyskinsfan | December 23, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

So couple questions to all the liberals blindly cheering on democrats (the ones that actually make a decent living not the bottom feeders who live off of others your opinion is meaningless)

Notice that credit card companies are upping interest rates and cutting credit limits? That's the REAL outcome of the credit card bill.

Notice that health care costs are skyrocketing more than other years? That's the REAL outcome of the health care bill.

Notice that loans are harder to get? That's the REAL outcome of the financial bill.

Soon you will notice your energy bills skyrocketing as the REAL costs of the upcoming EPA regulations take effect.

If you make over $40K a year you are a fool if you think these bills benefit you. They might sound good on paper but in the real world they will compress the middle class down into the poor.

Posted by: Cryos | December 23, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Psst. Jenny, your whiny petulant column changes nothing. I searched in vain for the content.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | December 23, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Stop it... you're killing me with all of the tier 1, A+ baggers

Posted by: nyskinsfan | December 23, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The Final Word?

“When it’s all going to be said and done, Harry Reid has eaten our lunch. This has been a capitulation in two weeks of dramatic proportions of policies that wouldn’t have passed in the new Congress.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham

[posted by R. Pies]

Posted by: rpies1 | December 23, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Psst. Jenny, your whiny petulant column changes nothing. I searched in vain for the content.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | December 23, 2010 4:52 PM
==========
You've posted the same worthless comments several times. Try growing a brain and actually articulating some kind of argument.

Posted by: Cryos | December 23, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

It's been weeks since the election. The Republican's take over the House in 10 days. WHERE IS BOEHNER'S PLAN FOR JOB CREATION AND DEFICIT REDUCTION?

Posted by: BBear1 | December 23, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

So couple questions to all the liberals blindly cheering on democrats (the ones that actually make a decent living not the bottom feeders who live off of others your opinion is meaningless)

Notice that credit card companies are upping interest rates and cutting credit limits? That's the REAL outcome of the credit card bill.

Notice that health care costs are skyrocketing more than other years? That's the REAL outcome of the health care bill.

Notice that loans are harder to get? That's the REAL outcome of the financial bill.

Soon you will notice your energy bills skyrocketing as the REAL costs of the upcoming EPA regulations take effect.

If you make over $40K a year you are a fool if you think these bills benefit you. They might sound good on paper but in the real world they will compress the middle class down into the poor.

Posted by: Cryos | December 23, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry,, I'm looking back over my financial statements of the past 20 years to see where my credit card rates and fees and health care costs DIDN'T go up.

AH! Here it is... The Clinton years.

Posted by: jason2smith | December 23, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama just reduced the funding to social security. I assume this means that there will be a change of what year people will get social security. If they get it. Why else change the funding?

And this maybe a victory for Obama but not for the average american. Look for big trouble when entitlements are cut. The change in funding is done to show how necessary the change in entitlement is.

It is a game that is being played on the american public. Than of cause the news media seems to be part of the joke. This comes with Bush mission accomplished sign. Now we have Obama victory ...the comeback kid. All this is political threater!

Posted by: artg | December 23, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh, this is a silly article. The tax cut compromise turned out to be a huge win for Obama and a turn around for him. For one, it pretty much proves Obama is not an ideologue. The American people like it. They might not fully agree on every issue but they really like that Obama and the republicans worked together on a serious issue that effects them personally. That is a huge win for him. Also, he then got some serious bills passed that were highly important to his base. That was a win, even if middle America does not much care, the liberals that had to swallow the tax cuts for the rich really needed those wins from Obama. Obama also figured out that if he creates a Team of Rivals with serious and intelligent heavy weight republicans he can get serious and heavy weight legislation passed. The very fact Obama figured out how to work with republicans is a HUGE victory.

So really, I can't understand your confusion.

Many democrats are serious about cutting deficit spending and simplifying the tax code. Obama is not a hard core left ideologue and will play ball with republicans, if they are serious about wanting to work for the betterment of our nation.

All eyes are watching, and if republicans start to look like the bad guys who refuse to find common ground now that they have a real slice of power.. middle America will take note.

The middle knows Obama will work with republicans. He let them have the thing they wanted more than anything, ANYTHING, if they could have anything, tax cuts for the rich.
That pretty much showed the republicans for what they are in the process.

Win, Obama.

Posted by: lilalove | December 23, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

So couple questions to all the liberals blindly cheering on democrats (the ones that actually make a decent living not the bottom feeders who live off of others your opinion is meaningless)

Notice that credit card companies are upping interest rates and cutting credit limits? That's the REAL outcome of the credit card bill.

Notice that health care costs are skyrocketing more than other years? That's the REAL outcome of the health care bill.

Notice that loans are harder to get? That's the REAL outcome of the financial bill.

Soon you will notice your energy bills skyrocketing as the REAL costs of the upcoming EPA regulations take effect.

If you make over $40K a year you are a fool if you think these bills benefit you. They might sound good on paper but in the real world they will compress the middle class down into the poor.

Posted by: Cryos | December 23, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry,, I'm looking back over my financial statements of the past 20 years to see where my credit card rates and fees and health care costs DIDN'T go up.

AH! Here it is... The Clinton years.

Posted by: jason2smith | December 23, 2010 5:19 PM
=========
Nice scapegoat. If your credit card rates have constantly gone up I feel sorry for you.

If you noticed for health costs I said gone up MORE THAN OTHER YEARS.

Btw the Clinton years were a bubble. They primed outsourcing by changing the career field into the service industry and IT.

Oh also there was a republican congress that insisted on tight spending.

But keep up with your scapegoats since you don't have the intelligence to actually debate an issue.

Posted by: Cryos | December 23, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Oboobma has every right to gloat, because although the American people put a big legislative check on his vile extremist agenda, he still has free run of the executive branch and judiciary, both of which is working overtime to stuff with radicals, extremists, communists, environmentalist wackos and assorted degenerates.

Posted by: thebump | December 23, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

We could cut military spending by a third and still run a very robust campaign in Afghanistan. That's how much we waste on contracts with Beltway bandits, and in providing for the defense needs of Saudi Arabia, Israel and Japan ahead of our own. Our role as the world's superpower is winding down; time for China and India to step up to the plate now. And the world may just be better off for it, although you wouldn't know that from the screaming neocons and those who enable corrupt Arab monarchies and dictatorships.

Posted by: armyofone | December 23, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"Obamacare" -- you repeat this derogatory label presumably because it's fashionable and easier to make fun of than "health care reform." What percent of the sanctimonious scum who oppose health care reform have good to excellent health care insurance for themselves? Probably 95%. Those same woodenheads have been experiencing rising premiums each year and eroding coverages. What magic was going to come along and improve it? None! STUPID!

Posted by: pdurand | December 23, 2010

===========================================

What percentage of the sanctimonious scum who voted FOR Obamacare on a party-line vote have excellent health care insurance for themselves, yet hypocritically declined to put themselves in the same system they forced down everyone else throat. DEFINITELY 100%.

Posted by: alexandria6351 | December 23, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

The issue of importance for the 2012 election may well be the price of energy. Gasoline will most likely be climbing from three to four dollars per gallon during the next two years, and Obama's energy policies will be the albatross around his neck. The current "comeback" issues will pale in comparison.

Posted by: cdoty1 | December 23, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

artg wrote:

"Obama just reduced the funding to social security. I assume this means that there will be a change of what year people will get social security. If they get it. Why else change the funding?"

Social Security is a general obligation of the US government, unrelated to how much money is taken in. That's why the SS Trust Fund is just a paper name, not a separate entity. Benefits cannot be reduced unless a specific law is passed. If you think the old people are going to see their SS cut, after taxes just got cut . . . well, let's just say that we differ!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 23, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

It could be the stone knife of ancient priestly rulers taking one’s life, or the tax knife of modern political rulers taking your livelihood ... the principle and practice is the same: human sacrifice. When human sacrifice ends, there may finally be a moral political system.

Posted by: ChristianProphet | December 23, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

God, what an awful column. But if the Post wants to pay for it, nothing we can do about it except blog.

Posted by: dudh | December 23, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama is around the bend. I'm reminded of Nixon's aides trying to make sure he couldn't push the "button." Is anyone close to Obama doing the same? I'd rather die of poverty over the long term that die in an exchange with ?????????????

I think the historians will remember one thing from this year: Obama's attack on Social Security. To begin to unravel the only piece of the security net that allows older people to live an independent life is the dumbest thing that any politician can do. Conservatives who approve of his action will rue the day. But then there are few conservatives these days--just demagogues and their moronic followers.

Posted by: rusty3 | December 23, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Liberals conflate the quantity of legislation passed with "progress."

Next year will be a doozy. Just for starters, the EPA is doubling down on junk science, we still haven't passed a budget, and healthcare reform is not being funded. There will be a titanic debate between left and right with 2012 in the balance.

These trivial lame duck "achievements" will be forgotten in about two weeks. Is anyone still talking about Michele's vacations?

Posted by: JohnBoy3 | December 23, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

“If you’re a supporter of this President’s agenda, you have seen some setbacks and false starts, but Christmas has undoubtedly come early. While the President is being labeled the “comeback kid” and the glow of a convalescent figure follows him to vacation in Hawaii. Your gift was a country moving in the progressive direction you voted for in 2008. Change has indeed come to America, now it’s time to dig in and protect all that has been accomplished.”

My review of the 111th “Mighty-Duck” Congress:
http://j.mp/i7kUMZ

Posted by: RyanC1384 | December 23, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

TARP money repaid, GM viable and profitable, credit card reform, stronger financial regulations, students saving 60 million in loans from banks, a Ledbetter law, a Sheppard law, a refurbished for war at no extra cost military making gains in Afghanistan, Start treaty, Pakistan clearing Swat Valley and drone attacks there in Yemen and Somalia, 600 billion spent into a stagnant economy with stimulus, 700 billion more by giving the rich 120 billion, securing plutonium, tax credits for college increased, the health care bill (no public option), don't ask don't tell repealed, no major terrorist attack on the west. Not too bad for a rookie with little experience.

Posted by: jameschirico | December 23, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Well bless your heart dearie, if you are getting whiplash trying to follow the Democrats' talking points maybe you're too stupid to write about them.

Posted by: kuvasz | December 23, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Astonishing, this is the most lucid and vivid description of the current condition and position that the moribund Democrat party, and their overhyped hope Obama. Come back kid, indeed, he will only fool or tingle those on the left, especially the leftist media heads, who have staked their careers on this fraud, so they're all in and moving the chairs around until the bitterly cold end. Funny, the Democrat party was in denial and comatose on November 3rd, now they are in denial and are outright delusional. Obama has lost the independents at large forever, and the flim flam during the lame duck has sealed his fate for good. And just like George Bush, Obama will slog along below the water line until the next election. And soon, he will have to press the rewind button on his campaign. Obama rode in on a wave of optimism not seen in years if not decades, yet he managed to squander all of his power in just two years, catering to the media and the left, instead of to the American majority. And just as you have so starkly illustrated it Rubin, his prospects for the next two new years are very bleak. But hey, he and the Democrat party and leftist media can always party like it's 1999, and 2009. Nice work Rubin, nice work.

Posted by: hared | December 23, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

The lame duck was just the culmination of the same hated Congress that gave us ObamaCare, the stimulus and bailouts, and increased financial and other regulation. This Congress has been repudiated by the voters in a landslide. The lame duck was an abuse of office.

It's a small comeback that Obama got DADT repeal and START. What matters more is that he had to swallow the Bush tax rates and that the new House will control spending after the continuing resolution expires in two months.

Posted by: eoniii | December 23, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes, there was no comeback. The Republicans are just mad, that's all.

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | December 23, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

A "comeback" implies that one competitor reverses losing to another to win. Obama can only comeback if the Republicans ever find a competitor to offer that can have a hope of surviving a primary campaign ready made for the kind of gaffs of which only Republicans are capable.

Posted by: TJG1 | December 23, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

for alyd69

If you want to criticize sentence structure, clean up your own. The following is rather pathetic.....

"Rambling, with poor sentence structure, I have to reread sections to even get a basic understanding of the point she is trying to make"

While your intent is to suggest Jennifer "rambles", by setting off only the words "with poor sentence structure" with commas, the sentence says you are the one rambling. This could be expressed better many ways, easy being...."Because Jennifer rambles and has poor sentence structure, I have to ........."

"I believe this majority, who emailed and called their Senators in droves, and left thousands of passionate comments weren't aware they had no interest."

Remove your comma after "droves" and put it after "comments", where it belongs.

These 2 examples in your short post are precisely what you are criticizing, shame on you.

Better that you just make your substantive comments and not embarass yourself this way.

Posted by: oparoberts | December 23, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

the accuracy of this article is evident in the comments here. it was just a week ago when these same folks were lamenting the bush tax cuts and blaming obama for being weak. suddenly, because of a couple of issues (which a number of republicans voted FOR)they are trumpeting this line about what a 'comeback kid' the prez is.
how conveniently they overlook the 'stimulus' pork package going down, the basis of obamacare being found unconstitutional, the extension of those dreaded bush tax rates,the defeat of the 'dream' act, gitmo remaining open, and on and on. all issues which, while still holding the majority in both houses, the dems should have been able to pass easily anytime in the last two years, much less the last two weeks. now, due to the voter smackdown they got in the last election, they will REALLY have some opposition to whine about rather than their imaginary right-wing boogey-men of the last two years. it should be entertaining.

Posted by: elpolacko | December 23, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on elpolacko, Obama did not have a 60 seat senate and republicans threatened filibuster with every bill brought forth. Dems could not pass things easily, however they passed healthcare over Christmas with zero filibuster from your guys. lol
You know why? Republicans hate, hate, hate to work holidays. It's like Kryptonite to them. Republicans spent a year screaming over never allowing the health care bill to pass, they even got a republican in Ted's set in Massachusetts to make sure they could block the bill with filibuster, and then... Oh no, it's Christmas! Crickets from the republicans. The law passed.

So yeah, Obama and the democrats have gotten more passed in two years than most presidents get passed in 8. And they did most of it with the help of some serious heavy weight republicans over this lame duck session.

If Obama keeps up with that model, creating a Team of Rivals with the most powerful and intelligent and heavy weight republicans above reproach, I see no reason why serious and heavy weight legislation will not get passed over the next two years.

Not all republicans are nit wit hysterics. Some that are very powerful are accidentally serious minded and brilliant. Obama can work with them. He has already proved it.

Posted by: lilalove | December 23, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

eonii wrote:

"that the new House will control spending after the continuing resolution expires in two months."

A bone to pick over this one, which you may find unimportant. The House cannot unilaterally control spending except by refusing to fund the government or raise the debt ceiling. To actually spend any money whatsoever, for any reason they have to have the agreement of the Senate.

So at some point there may be a test of wills in which the GOP bluffs about shutting down the government. At that point, what will the House Repbulicans do if Obama says go ahead, and starts making speeches about the Republican shutdown of government?

Gingrich folded like a cheap suit the last time that this happened in 1995 and Boehner doesn't seem to be made of any sterner stuff. If Obama has learned anything from Clinton, that's a BIG if, look for a Republican House to mean whole lot less than you think it does!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 23, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

actually, lol, but accidentally is funnier.

Posted by: lilalove | December 23, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Yup, McCain certainly would have pushed DADT repeal, TARP, bailout of auto industry, payroll tax cuts in 2009 and now again in 2011, an Afghanistan review and drawdown to begin in summer 2012, financial system reform, health care reform, food safety law, two progressive SC justices, etc....
Posted by: army164 | December 23, 2010 3:10 PM
___________________________________
Well considering it was President Bush that signed TARP and the first auto bailout into law, what has not already been waived in the health bill is about 6 months from being overturned and like the financial reform remains unfunded, and that DADT and the Afghan draw down will actually take place whenever the Pentagon decides to get around to it, please excuse me for not joining the stampede to put Obama and Pelosi on Mount Rushmore. This Congress, the Democrats and Republicans should be coawarded the "most contemptible performance" prize.


Posted by: Wonderingaloud999 | December 23, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

eonii wrote:

"that the new House will control spending after the continuing resolution expires in two months."

A bone to pick over this one, which you may find unimportant. The House cannot unilaterally control spending except by refusing to fund the government or raise the debt ceiling. To actually spend any money whatsoever, for any reason they have to have the agreement of the Senate.

So at some point there may be a test of wills in which the GOP bluffs about shutting down the government. At that point, what will the House Repbulicans do if Obama says go ahead, and starts making speeches about the Republican shutdown of government?

Gingrich folded like a cheap suit the last time that this happened in 1995 and Boehner doesn't seem to be made of any sterner stuff. If Obama has learned anything from Clinton, that's a BIG if, look for a Republican House to mean whole lot less than you think it does!

Posted by: 54465446
--------------------------
You're correct that the House will be battling with the president over spending. The Senate will have a narrow Dem majority, but many of those Dems must run in red states in two years, which will temper their liberalism. I don't know who will win, but I doubt the Republicans will fall into the "shut down the government" trap again. They must approve every dollar that the executive branch spends and a lot of Obama's priorities simply won't be funded.

Posted by: eoniii | December 23, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Will someone please realize that the only "tax cuts" in the bill passed is the 2% payroll reduction?
The tax rates in effect since 2003 are continued. So if the same amount of people work in 2011 as in 2010 with the same tax "rates", then where is the "adding to the deficit? Wouldn't the irs be collecting the same amount?
This is just left wing math to say that because we aren't collecting the additional taxes, we have additional debt.
What got us the trillion dollar deficits in the first two years of Obama's reign? Excessive spending. The budget has increased so much since the beginning of 2009 it makes Bush look good.
Before the Dems took over congress in 2007, the unemployment rate was below 5% and the budget deficit for fiscal 2007 was $162 billion. Yes that is billion. Not Trillion!
We have got to get people back to work and paying taxes and cut spending to get the deficit under control.
Unfortunately this president spent a year trying to pass a healthcare bill that is making regular healthcare more expensive. That is the plan. He said that you can keep your current plan if you like it, however, most companies now have to change their plans because of rising costs due to new legislation. This will lead Obama to say that because the evil insurance companies raised your rates, the government will have to come to the rescue.
He has been worried more about DADT, dream, czars, failed stimulus, than jobs.
He has been talking about jobs since before he was president, but he has been busy with the leftist agenda.
Now, right before he leaves for his Hawaii vacation, he talks of working for jobs again. Yea right. His dream of total government control of your life will only be complete when the majority of americans need a handout.
Where are the jobs Mr. President?

Posted by: scotta59 | December 23, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't be gone soon enough for most Americans, especially those who have buyers remorse for voting for the idiot the first time. He has proved himself to be a man of No Honor or Integrity, a thief in the night, a Judus to the American People! He and his Legion of Demons are going to pay for their Incompetence for many years to come!

Posted by: billwhit1357 | December 23, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Only those those in an extreme state of delusion (read that "Democrats") would view the passage of these two efforts as "victories". Not only are they back-burner issues as far as the American voter is concerned, but, come January, they are going to be subject to an unrelenting assault by the new members of the House.

It is sad that an administration so bereft of successes would continue to think that the glitz and sophistry which got them elected in the first place would still work on an electorate that has long-since discovered that they have been hoodwinked by a shaman of the first order. In 2008, they hungered for change, but what they got was a flu shot shortage, a lethargic response to the oil spill, a stimulus package that has yet to "stimulate" employment in any meaningful way, and a foreign policy that has half the world thumbing their noses at us.

2012 cannot come soon enough.

Posted by: Rocks66 | December 24, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

With the numbers Fidel Obama had in both houses, a blind one legged monkey could have rammed Marxist policies down our throat all day long. He/they did, and now it's time to pay the piper..

Posted by: wewintheylose | December 24, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Is anyone paying any attention?

Obama was still losing everything when people tuned out for the holidays.

His mild "victories" were the equivalent of Friday night news dumps.

But most conservatives are happy enough that the huge spending bill was killed. DADT is the military's problem. A military that is going to have to be rebuilt after the Obama administration anyway.

Remember why Reid passed the Healthcare bill on Christmas Eve last year... because no one is watching Congress on Christmas.

That news didn't hit Americans until after the holidays. Then how successful was it?

Crow, crow all you want today.

Obama is the worst ever. It's only a matter of time until he has another embarrassing melt down.

Posted by: Mypostid7 | December 24, 2010 3:34 AM | Report abuse

"I suppose conservatives should keep mum."

Well, dear, let's see you walking the walk instead of talking the talk then.

Posted by: laboo | December 24, 2010 5:35 AM | Report abuse

Maybe someone can help me out with this one. What exactly did the 9/11 bill do for the responders, and why was it necessary? Don't they already have insurance, given the nature of their work? My understanding is that at least 50% of it is compensation, not for direct medical needs. Again, don't they already have long-term disability insurance? It's hard for me to believe they've all been being treated at the local walk-in clinic and eating dogfood for nine years.

To me, this is just another example of everyone wanting a hand-out. No, I'm not saying they don't deserve to be fully compensated, nor am I saying that they don't even deserve special compensation given the unique nature of the event. I'm just saying that it isn't at all clear what they're getting and why. Can a tax-paying citizen even ask that question, or am I to be excoriated for even questioning it?

I believe that December 2010 will be Obama's high water mark. He'll no longer have the 'crat-dominated House and there will be more true fiscal conservatives in both houses to hold him, the 'crats, and RINO enablers in check. And if they don't, you're going to see a tsunami of fiscal conservatives elected in 2012 that will make the 2010 elections appear like a small ripple.

For some reason, I also can't help thinking that Obama's (and our) luck has run out as far as foreign events are concerned. The world doesn't stay quiet for very long, and we've had two years of next to nothing happening (or at least, the MSM reporting on nothing as though nothing is happening). Maybe it's because I despise the guy, but I can't help thinking that "pride cometh before a fall", and Obama back to his old way of strutting, giving victory speeches with his voice rising in a crescendo in campaign mode, and flashing that fake toothy grin.

Posted by: RedderThanEver | December 24, 2010 6:50 AM | Report abuse

The first African American President was a failure. Hopefully the second one will fare better.

Posted by: alan19 | December 24, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

If the "Right Turn" talker is getting whiplash. its because she hasn't the attention span to focus on important matters and study their complex multifaceted context in real life in an effort to truly understand anything. All she does is dart in and out of blogs etc by lefties looking to snatch up a word or phrase she can turn the context toward her advantage for making arguments.
Why 30 years after FDR, America was on the way to the moon, raising the living standards of a generation, standing up as an exceptional bastion of freedom against the Soviet Union - and now who thinks America has a role in the future for generations? Didn't FDR set about erecting the economic foundation for business and jobs? Tamed waterways, electrified the countryside from sea to shining sea, won a war after which America was the only industrial and military power with the prospect to stand on its own for generations.
In 30 years after Reagan elected we have talking points. We have tax cuts, deregulation, and smaller (broke) government. Yes these talking points address things people don't like. But have they built an economy? They've built more colossal fortunes for some. They've taken the rug out from under students who want to work and use their skills. World history is full of societies that found great fortune and power for a few - we're not so exceptional it seems.
But how would the Right Turn Talker know the difference? All she has is retorts to my words in mind. But who am I to talk, Im the one visiting her hell hole.

Posted by: tigman_2 | December 24, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

You are exactly right -- all this BS about a "comeback" is just that. It's an attempt to save a failing president and presidency -- throw the sap a line; a non-swimmer in water for the first time; take your eyes off the REAL issues that affect this country. The potential for unending peril continues.

Posted by: baltic | December 24, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

The best "comeback" for Americans would be the Supreme Court overturning Obamacare soon. There was no judicial review of that 2700-page monstrosity before it was passed via bribes and back-room deals, and fortunately, that lack of judicial review as well as Obama's claim that the penalty is not a "tax" are now haunting the legislation.

Posted by: judithod | December 24, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The folks in the media who want so badly for Obama to succeed couldn't wait for the ink to dry on the midterm elections before trumpeting Obama's "comeback." Who but wishful thinkers could believe such a thing? "Next year" is a week away, and starting next year Obama will be facing a House of Representatives that will oppose virtually everything he has done and will try to do, and which is gearing up to defund the regulatory agencies that he hopes to use to achieve Rule By Decree. There's no comeback to be had. Obama is finished.

Posted by: rhahn1 | December 24, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

The only points that I agree with here are: political success is not the same as legislative success; Obama isn't making a comeback; the Beltway media is deflecting Obama's mishaps to a degree; AND the Republicans' "wins" do outweigh what Obama's "wins" were.

This from a liberal.

I'm just saying, you look at what the majority of Americans really wanted, and you can't say that DADT and START were just "liberal issues"... so those shouldn't be considered "wins" for Obama. Those should be easily slam dunks... not things that should have to be fought for, really.

Now, on the omnibus spending bill failing (loaded with earmarks from everybody, but still important), Americans lose. Tax cuts for the rich including estate tax cut, regardless of what else is in the bill, Americans overall lose (especially on the deficit), and on the Dream Act - which does deal with a legitimate issue, not just some culture war thing, Republicans win (not so much that Americans lose that one).

I don't like Rubin, but she did make some valid points here. Obama is still weak and not a guy I would vote for again. You think 2 weeks is going to change that, OBAMA? HA! Try keeping a full spine intact for four years, DINO.

It's bad enough Republicans don't care about Americans (not even the 9/11 responders they used as props for years), but to have Obama give them political cover every chance he gets, is unforgiveable.

By the way, I would consider this lame duck session a comeback for Harry Reid, not Obama. Obama didn't do jack except fight for START (the only real fight he's gone all out on short of arguing) and coerced Democrats into a bad deal on the tax scheme. Reid actually got the Senate to work for a little while - for long work days, too!

Posted by: fbutler1 | December 24, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Many pronouncements and predictions, little substance. Only someone with the shakiest grasp of domestic politics (and no understanding whatsoever of logic) could type a passage like the following: "Obama may yet stage a comeback. But to do that, he'll have to do what the left loathes -- cut domestic programs, rework entitlement programs, stand up to foreign adversaries (Obama's legacy is irretrievably ruined if Iran gets the bomb on his watch), cut back on growth-restricting regulations and keep tax rates low. And so long as unemployment remains at historic highs, Obama's chances of re-election remain poor." Just who does Rubin think relies on domestic programs and entitlements? Just how little attention has she been paying to American politics, in which fortunes are lost and regained at a rapid pace? Just how little does she know about tax rates and how much better the middle class has fared in that regard under Obama?

The history of Obama's term, let alone his legacy, is nowhere near to being written, and Rubin ought not to attempt it.

Posted by: AnotherHagman | December 24, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Wow, a lot of hate here. I have not read Ms Rubin befoer & now I see why. Ask any Dem behind closed doors about the Dream Act and they will say it is a litmis test showing how Reps would vote against children brought up in America who had worked their way into cllege acceptance & who are here illegally through no fault of their own. Quite af few voted FOR the act & it will be recurring in the future. That was the goal. As for DADT being a non-issue, that is laughable. Core values + patriotism + military=win. Once aain, Reps are shown as hate mongers but now they are also against public opinion and military leaders. AS fr economy, the more stories that come out about Fortune 1000 companies sitting on vast earnings and NOT hiring, and still knowing the unemployment rate is eXACTLY the same as when Bush left office, will not be so bad. As for Iran getting nuclear on Obama's wach, there is no way that can be turned away from 8 years of bush. I do not hate Bush or idolize Obama, but this article was cr@p & showed no keen insight into true goal setting, just politics and that is not journalism. George will is a honest conservative journalist, this trash isn't

Posted by: cadam72 | December 24, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Isn't the Republicans calling HCR Obamacare nothing more or less than the Democrats calling SDI Star Wars?

Posted by: aardunza | December 24, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

judihod wrote:

"There was no judicial review of that 2700-page monstrosity before it was passed via bribes and back-room deals, and fortunately, that lack of judicial review as well as Obama's claim that the penalty is not a "tax" are now haunting the legislation."


It's the holiday, so I'm on my best behavior.

There is never any judicial review of any legislation before it's passed. That's an oxymoron. All legislation is full of bribes and back-room deals.

While you will never see it in Jennifer's column, the District Court record so far is 1-8-1 for your side. Eight dismissals of plaintiff cases, one sent forth to the Appeals Court with no ruling on constitutionality and the one ruling with that went against the government.


I tried to make it a nice as I could!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 24, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Although the repeal of DADT probably isn't of deep concern to most Americans, I can assure you it is to most veterans. But there are only 22,000,000 or so of us.

Of course, that we're opposed to the repeal wouldn't much impress the Left. After all, most of us who've served in the armed forces lean Right politically.

It should surprise no-one that the Dems keep attempting to deny G.I.s the right to vote, all too guys in uniform cast votes in opposition to Leftists & their programs.

Posted by: LoachDriver | December 25, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company