Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Most Important Number in Politics Today



Has President Barack Obama bitten off more than he can chew? AP Photo/Alex Brandon

65

That's the percentage of people who say that President Obama has taken on "more issues than he should have," according to a new CNN/Opinion Research poll.

That number has increased by 10 percentage points since a mid-March CNN/ORC poll while those who believe Obama has not taken on too many issues dropped from 43 percent in March to 30 percent now.

Republicans have sought to score political points by insisting that Obama's decision to take on health care reform and cap and trade has distracted from his work to fix the economy.

That messaging got an unexpected boost from retired Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican who endorsed Obama in 2008, during a recent interview with Larry King. "You have to make sure you're focusing on those things that are most important and not try to have a dozen main attacks at once, because you end up sort of frittering your energy and your troops."

Obama has repeatedly pushed back on the idea that he is doing too much by arguing that he took office at a time of national and international crises of epic proportions and that he is simply reacting to what has been put in front of him.

But, these numbers suggest that the ongoing health care fight, which has seen the Administration struggle to corral those within its party and find little willingness for bipartisan compromise among Republicans, has cost the White House much-needed momentum in the eyes of the American public.

Remember that much of Obama's appeal is built around the perception among most Americans that he is, above all else, competent -- that he has a vision for how to turn the country around and is steadily implementing it.

Anything that erodes that belief in Obama's competence -- health care reform, cash for clunkers etc. -- is dangerous to his brand and, therefore, to the broader electoral fate of the Democratic party.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 6, 2009; 1:00 PM ET
Categories:  Most Important Number  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fix Political Hall of Fame: The Mayors Edition!
Next: The Politics of the Sotomayor Vote

Comments

Then you gotta figure in those millions who never get survey calls...like myself, a moderate republican, who KNOWS that Obama had no choice. The state of this country when he took over HAD to be dealt with and he HAD to start giving his stated agenda from the campaign. Do we, millions of us NOT wearing tin foil hats, hold him responsible? LOL See ya in 2010.

Posted by: Grissom1001 | August 11, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Peace, nodebris, but I think this goes too far:

"I really fault you, Cilliza, for allowing jaked and zouk to debase your blog, with entirely and blatantly dishonest discourse -- there is no "matter of opinion" here, just known and verifiable lies that you tolerate to be repeated ad nauseum under your imprimatur."

zouk and jake aren't posting anything "under Cilliza's imprimatur"; their comments, however silly, are posted with their own (screen) names... it would be tedious to weed through these comments constantly, and whatever standard the appointed censor might attempt to apply, removals would inevitably be somewhat arbitrary.

Besides, taking down the really dumb posts would deprive me of one of my favorite pastimes, shooting fish in a barrel.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | August 7, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:
"[dbw1] is just as angry as zouk, and just as repetitive as jake."

At least you were able to start my morning with a chuckle. Having chrisfox8 call me "angry" is the ultimate irony, considering his usual batch of posts each day. Have you called anyone 'racist' lately for disagreeing with you?

Posted by: dbw1 | August 7, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

nodebris:
"dbw1 pretending he doesn't know the source of the 47 million figure is pretty funny. I guess he doesn't want to get caught saying that GWB's Census Bureau lied."

If you have been following my posts, I've quoted myself where the 47 million comes from. What I'm having trouble with is getting any Democrat to understand how "math" works....

If you want to stick with using the 47 million uninsured number, that's great. I'll play along. In the meantime, using the same math, you need to explain how Obama is going to create enough jobs for the 45-50 million unemployed workers.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 7, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

yeah BB I got pretty much the same line in the gym locker room a coupla days ago when I asked some guy to please dry off over the drains instead of in the lockers where people are putting on clean socks.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 7, 2009 1:05 AM | Report abuse

@chrisfox - You're welcome. You swing your way. I swing mine.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 7, 2009 12:57 AM | Report abuse

And yet, he's a step above zouk and jaked.

==

Barely. He's just as angry as zouk, and just as repetitive as jake

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 11:33 PM | Report abuse

I am not pouting. I am providing information in case any lurkers wonder why I didn't answer.

==

And why pray tell would any lurker need this information? You're one of the most pompous and self-important people I've ever seen online. Hint, racist: nobody's tracking you, nobody cares whom you would or wouldn't vote for, nor why; nobody's keeping up with what's "on the record."

Your endlessly repeated pout about people not answering your questions is jaw-dropping childish, petulant and vain. The reason nobody answers you (except mark and BB, thanks for nothing, guys) is because your "questions" are stupid and provocative.

And you are THE most brainlessly repetitive person I've ever run across. Anyone else?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 11:20 PM | Report abuse

He's not pouting. He isn't! And if you say so again, he'll hold his breath until you take it back, you mean man. Because lurkers deserve to know the truth!

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 pretending he doesn't know the source of the 47 million figure is pretty funny. I guess he doesn't want to get caught saying that GWB's Census Bureau lied. It would raise too many awkward questions.

And yet, he's a step above zouk and jaked.

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 11:07 PM | Report abuse

I am not pouting. I am providing information in case any lurkers wonder why I didn't answer.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 10:19 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry, JRM2, I would have been happy to answer all your questions, but you previously refused to answer mine."

I saw this quoted and wondered who had such an infantile response. Respond if you want don't if you want but don't pout.


Posted by: Gator-ron | August 6, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

The first thing you have to understand about jaked is that he has no interest in an intelligent, informed, honest discussion. He's a faintly more subtle version of zouk. His only goal is to disrupt a forming consensus that he can't stomach. Like zouk, his effort is ultimately in vain, but entirely annoying. They are tics, chiggers, gnats. Only a fool welcomes them to the party. They don't have any blood of their own; they live off sucking yours.

I really fault you, Cilliza, for allowing jaked and zouk to debase your blog, with entirely and blatantly dishonest discourse -- there is no "matter of opinion" here, just known and verifiable lies that you tolerate to be repeated ad nauseum under your imprimatur.

Your blog is what you have made it. Your hands-off approach is approval and sanction. It's a testament to you. Lies and anger. Nice work. Is this why you went into the business? To host vermin on the mangy corpse of the press? Well done, then. Success.

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

dbw1:

You seriously expect "proof"? I quote the 9/11 Commission and that's completely dismissed.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

@dbw: That figure comes from the US government, your doubt of it comes from Rush Limbaugh.

Why don't you just scream something about illegal aliens and be done with it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:
"The [47 million uninsured] figure is accruate."

Actually it isn't, but if you want to show us your 'proof' of this number, feel free. List out who or what groups make up the 47 million people, right now, today, as of this minute, who are walking around without insurance...according to Democrats.

You can't, because the number is falsely inflated. As usual, you just simply refuse to accept facts that hurt your case when presented with them. If it runs outside of our left-wing blog talking point list, you can't seem to process it.


Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, JRM2, I would have been happy to answer all your questions, but you previously refused to answer mine.

==

how infantile

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

He's a flagrant racist, JR.

==

bubububububut he voted for ALAN KEYES

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Chris, usually I agree with you but Al Qaeda would like nothing more than to hit us again

==

I don't doubt it, but that's not the same as saying that actual plots well along were discovered and thwarted. If Bush claimed X and his intelligence officials claimed not-X, I'm going with the guys who haven't been caught lying and who are closer to the actual data.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Of course the plot was never fully developed because GWB thwarted it

==

No evidence of that. Just the claim of a desperately insecure man who lied to us about everything having to do with terrorism and Iraq.

Figures that you, who lie in pretty much every post, would take the word of a liar over the word of the people he was supposed to be getting his information from.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris, my goodness, you can't really be this stupid. You must be another WP Rethuglican political shill. Pres. Obama, obviously is just about the only Patriot in the country. The rest of us are a bunch of ravening wolves (like you Chris?) or bleating sheep. THAT is why his poll numbers, and likelihood of success is diminishing. It is not him! It is we the sheeple, the ReThugs mob, and YOU Chris. Thanks for your destructiveness! :-(

Posted by: start_loving | August 6, 2009 8:47 PM | Report abuse

He's a flagrant racist, JR. Best to ignore him so he doesn't make you puke.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, JRM2, I would have been happy to answer all your questions, but you previously refused to answer mine.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Ever notice how JakeD keeps making references to "killing" "shooting" "monkeys" "watermelons" etc?

What's up with this guy?, is it a conservative thing?

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"A belief with no foundation whatsoever, nothing more than what you would like to believe to keep your myths alive

Posted by: chrisfox8 "
------
Sorry Chris, usually I agree with you but Al Qaeda would like nothing more than to hit us again, especially since Obama was elected. With his ability to move the public will, and his popularity overseas, Al Qaeda is flummoxed about what to do about this guy.

They are in more trouble than they have ever been and need to do something to keep their cause alive.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

scrivener50:

So, if you "know", then put up or shut up: is "dottydo" paid to post here? Is DDAWD paid to post here? Is "chrisfox8" paid to post here? Am I?

Are you forwarding all of your posts to flag@whitehouse.gov ?

chrisfox8:

Of course the plot was never fully developed because GWB thwarted it -- here's an analogy: Secret Service agents disarmed Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme in 1975 -- if they hadn't, she probably would have fired the semiautomatic .45- caliber pistol at President Ford. BTW: Bush43 never "lied" about anything, and you have yet to prove such an allegation (unlike Bill Clinton who ADMITTED that he "misled people, including even [his] wife"). Your turn.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

DO THEY REALLY THINK EVERYONE IS CLUELESS AND UNAWARE?

"""Welcome aboard Mr. Biden, now take this Titanic off the bottom, and plot her course for the Stars and beyond.

Posted by: dottydo | August 6, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse""""


Attention "dottydo" and all paid blog-spammers (you know who you are and so do I):

Is this what the UW manual calls "desensitization"?

Or is it "softening the battlefield"?

I have reason to believe that the MANY good people on the inside are aware, even if media pundits and scribes are clueless, and THEY ARE WATCHING YOU, TOO.

Have a nice day.


http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 6, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Partial foundation (for further attacks out here on the Left Coast): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bank_Tower#Terrorist_target

==

"Some counter-terrorism experts have expressed doubt that the plot was ever fully developed or likely to occur"

Yet you believe Bush, who lied incessantly?

Figures.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I'll agree with you there. I was going to put something about that, but just got sick of writing. I agree that bad economic theories get more acceptance than the equivalents in other fields, but your conclusion is pretty ridiculous. It's akin to saying that all politicians are evil and corrupt.

==

I'm not saying all economists are supply-siders, I'm saying that as a science of human behavior, economics is a lot closer to worthless than to the absolute determinism that it's credited with.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

So long as Pres Obama continues to get legislation passed, he will still be seen as competent. But as we get into the middle of his term, the question will be whether the economy has turned around; he acknowledged himself that if the answer is no, his re-election bid will be tough.

Posted by: jrosco3 | August 6, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"The difference I see is this: creationists don't get tenured posts at universities, only at Bible colleges."

Yeah, I'll agree with you there. I was going to put something about that, but just got sick of writing. I agree that bad economic theories get more acceptance than the equivalents in other fields, but your conclusion is pretty ridiculous. It's akin to saying that all politicians are evil and corrupt.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 6, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

The rest is classified, so I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

jaked, everyone knows what you're saying.

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Partial foundation (for further attacks out here on the Left Coast): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bank_Tower#Terrorist_target

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

it is my belief that al Qaeda would have hit us again,

==

A belief with no foundation whatsoever, nothing more than what you would like to believe to keep your myths alive

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

The difference I see is this: creationists don't get tenured posts at universities, only at Bible colleges.

Yet some of the nation's most esteemed universities still hire supply-siders, and the "Chicago School" continues to lend its aplomb to right-wing economics, including the looniest of discredited ideas.

You won't find many proponents of the raisin-pudding atom in Physics departments.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

No, nodebris, I am saying that GWB and EVERY prior President (Clinton, Bush41, Reagan, Carter) failed to realize the United States was at war with terrorists until 9/11 -- GWB corrected that oversight and took the fight to the terrorists -- it is my belief that al Qaeda would have hit us again, harder than 9/11, had we not gone into Afghanistan AND Iraq (speculative theories about creating a generation of radicalized Muslims and vast recruitment thereof notwithstanding ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"Ideas—hypotheses—that have failed shouldn't have supporters. Having been falsified in the crucible of functioning economies (there being no way to conduct experiments where other variable are suppressed), failed hypotheses should be deprecated. They are in the sciences, they aren't in economics."

I don't study much economics, but to me, there seems to be two groups of economists. You have Economists and you have Conservative Economists.

You see where I'm going with this?

Conservative economists all believe in trickle down economics.

Real economists, the ones that do honest work don't ever seem to think so. You're going to see this in every field of science that has political involvement. You don't see conservative biochemists, but you'll see plenty of PhDs who are going to espouse Creationism. Same thing with global warming. Sure, in terms of an uncontextual number, you'll get a "lot" of scientists who don't believe in global warming, but in the aggregate, the far majority of people who study this believe that global warming is real and human caused. People are quite willing to sacrifice integrity to achieve fame, wealth, and power. When a PhD writes a book espousing creationism, all the evangelicals are going to wet themselves and the book is going to do well.

Ok, I'm starting to feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. Believe what you want. It doesn't really matter.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 6, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

jaked means that bush kept America safe from terrorist attacks ever since he didn't.

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Oh, OK, DDAWD .. I wasn't saying that failed economic hypotheses have politician supporters, I'm saying they still have support among economists, both in politics and in academia.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

But then he could not use them in concert with his SP poster.

==

Good point.

He should punch the wall with his non-spankin' hand

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Um, science isn't defined by what has herds of supporters. Creationism has herds of supporters as well. Does that mean that biology is a crap science as well?

==

You read it backwards.

Ideas—hypotheses—that have failed shouldn't have supporters. Having been falsified in the crucible of functioning economies (there being no way to conduct experiments where other variable are suppressed), failed hypotheses should be deprecated. They are in the sciences, they aren't in economics.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"If you're so bitter about Obama's progressive agenda, go punch a wall. Real hard. And know that your broken metacarpals will be treated.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | "
------
But then he could not use them in concert with his SP poster.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"First of all, I think economics is about 99% bubbling crap. I don't think it qualifies as a science at all, because there is no concept of falsifiability. Economic ideas that have failed in practice 100% of the time remain esteemed and have herds of supporters."

Um, science isn't defined by what has herds of supporters. Creationism has herds of supporters as well. Does that mean that biology is a crap science as well?

Economic ideas aren't implemented by economists. They are implemented by politicians. You think Reagan ever cared whether his policies are actually economically sound? Politicians don't care about economic science. They care about political science. And political science has shown time and time again that tax cuts=votes.

But then again, myself and others have made these points to you multiple times, so I'm not sure why I make them again.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 6, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Hopefully, his results are diminished due to the fact that he bit off more than he can chew. Maybe YOU have heard the story of the little monkey with his fist stuck in a jar because he held onto too many nuts in his hand.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to "mikeinmidland" since you noted on the newest thread that you haven't seen any of us quote from the New Testament lately, re: my pro bono work on these threads:

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:19-21).

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

"Bush kept us safe" is crap, just like "Reagan ended the Cold War."

Republicans can't deal with reality, they need to live in a parallel imaginary universe loaded with hostility and secret plots being arranged by their fellow citizens.

Bush's unmotivated invasions of two Muslim countries have radicalized a generation of Muslim youth, created vast recruitment incentives for our enemies. To say that in some way enhanced our security isn't an argument, it's too stupid to qualify.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"Don't mean to be cynical but isn't that called good politics? Obama has strong economic judgement but even stronger political reasoning.

Posted by: Gator-ron | "
-----
I don't think Obama has strong enough economic chops to pull off that kind of timing. There are a lot of things he's done which I disagree with, but I understand very little about economics, i only know the results of what I have seen in my lifetime.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Well, I can't really read all these comments. I'm sure all the people who think that Obama has taken on too much also work the word "lib" in their posts.

But as for the real world, I think its just that since Obama hasn't solved everything yet, people are looking for a plausible explanation. The press seems to be pushing the meme that Obama is doing too much, so people are going with that.

Honestly, it doesn't matter whether people think Obama is doing too much or not. They just want to see results. If he doesn't get results, people could think that its because he's taken on too much or they can think its because some alien fungus has taken over his brain. Either way, he's going to lose support. If he gets stuff done, these questions will vanish.

It's kind of what we saw during the elections. Every day we saw some question about this. Is Obama not punching hard enough? Is he too much of a celebrity? Does he do too many town halls? Is he black enough? Blah, blah.

Obama's biggest strength is his ability to see the big picture and to put all of these pieces together. When all is said and done, I'll be judging him on his results, not his methodology. So will the rest of the country.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 6, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Yes.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Oh, you meant after 911 and the anthrax attacks.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"I agree it would be better to have a lunatic who has the money to be able to carry an AK-47 and routinely massacre groups of liberals. Call it "Really-Late Term Abortion" ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:29 PM |"
---------
What would you say to a person like myself, who respects the right of choice in this matter, yet has fathered four children, one of which has a serious heart condition, who could die in a matter of weeks and will probably be dependent upon me his entire abbreviated life?

What would you say to my fatherless children?, "too bad, he should not have believed people had the right to choose?"

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:

I think the anthrax attacks were terrorist attacks too -- I said SINCE 2001 -- it would probably be better if we just go back to ignoring each other now ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

""GWB kept us safe from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 2001. Let's see if pResident Obama can do the same."
Posted by: JakeD"

He wasn't big on prevention, until Sept. 12th 2001

I think the anthrax attacks were considered a terrorist attack.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, chrisfox8, I will add that to the list of Obama's failures.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama has strong economic judgement

==

I would disagree.

First of all, I think economics is about 99% bubbling crap. I don't think it qualifies as a science at all, because there is no concept of falsifiability. Economic ideas that have failed in practice 100% of the time remain esteemed and have herds of supporters.

Obama's lack of understanding of the 1% that isn't crap was demonstrated in the bailouts, where money went to banks instead of to homeowners facing foreclosure. He was badly advised by Geithner and Summers and if he knew enough to merit your admiration he would have overruled them.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

""Why can this Team Obama not realize that in America, TAX BREAKS WORK!!"

Tax breaks for the wealthy did not work over the last 8 years, the division between rich and poor grew, there was zero trickle down effect, in fact, wages stagnated more than at anytime in history.

Obama did however sign into law, the biggest middle-tax cut in over 40 years as part of the stimulus bill.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I tried to read fwd all the posts since I suggested that being prez is a daunting job that no one can think about without sensing that it is "too much", better said later by Gator-Ron. If someone else tries this: I think s/he could read only the following and get the meat of the discussion without the heat.

bsimon1 at 1:56P
kemurph at 2:19P
vbhoomes at 2:29P
margaretmeyers at 2:31P
JaneBo8 at 2:31P
gthstonesman at 2:52P
dbw1 at 3:08P
Mikieinmidland at 3:09P [especially good, if correct] replied to by
dbw1 at 3:31P [especially good, if correct]
drindl at 3:46P
gjonahjameson at 3:51P

Skip everything else. I know, I left out my post and Gator-Ron's, but no boasting is allowed.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 6, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"If the economy starts turning around by the end of this year as projected, then jobs should start coming back around...oh...just before the midterm elections."

Don't mean to be cynical but isn't that called good politics? Obama has strong economic judgement but even stronger political reasoning.

Posted by: Gator-ron | August 6, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I stand behind every post I've submitted and will never "backpedal" on a single post -- keep up with the personal attacks though -- just because you libs think the moon is made of green cheese does not make it so.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Problem with this late attempt at backpedal Jake is that all your legally offensive posts are "on the record"

You can't erase them, you can't even edit them.

Looking forward to some good discussions around here, without you around.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"At least I'm not calling for the assassination of pResident Obama ."

I interpret the above to mean that I have thought about it, if I could get away with it I would but I am smart enough to know that if I wrote it I'll be harassed for so doing.

With an emotional architecture like yours you must have been intolerable to deal with professionally for those who did not border on the bizarre.

Posted by: Gator-ron | August 6, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"At least I'm not calling for the assassination of pResident Obama ...

Posted by: JakeD | "
--
Mighty philanthropic of you.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

If the economy starts turning around by the end of this year as projected, then jobs should start coming back around...oh...just before the midterm elections.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Not true. While, in common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who simply takes a position he or she disagrees with for the sake of argument, this process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure. (Capitalized, as I did on purpose, "chrisfox8") Devil's Advocate -- Latin: advocatus diaboli -- was established during the canonization process of the Roman Catholic Church, as the is a canon lawyer appointed to argue against the canonization of the candidate (in this instance, The One). It is up to the Devil's Advocate to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, etc. The Devil's Advocate therefore opposes God's Advocate -- Latin: Advocatus Dei; also known as the Promoter of the Cause -- whose task is to make the argument in favor of canonization.

The British-born, American columnist, Christopher Hitchens, was famously asked to testify against the beatification of Mother Teresa in 2002, a role he would later humorously describe as being akin to "representing the Evil One, as it were, pro bono".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

I don't get "paid" by SLP or anyone else to post here.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Remember that much of Obama's appeal is built around the perception among most Americans that he is, above all else, competent

==

Not as important as the perception that he's honest.

A deprecated quality since 1980 that many Americans still care about.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

How much does SLP pay?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Cute, but you are something far simpler than that.

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

I am the Devil's Advocate ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

scrivener50:

I suggest that you make note of that e-mail address and copy your daily posts there too.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I am also forwarding this entire thread to flag@whitehouse.gov

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

It's one thing to have to restate a dubious defendant's phrasing: but you treat yourself as though you were the dubious defendant. You speak as though you are trying to get away with your ideas, rather than actually believing them.

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I thought I parsed my words sufficiently not to get reported.

For the record, it is very hard to constantly imply things without crossing the line. I thought winking at the end was enough.

For the record, I hate the fact that everything I type here is still "on the record" minutes and even days later when I wish to deny I said it.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Someone who has to constantly rephrase himself "for the record" . . . that's how honest, forthright people speak, right? "For the record, I didn't say what I just plainly said."

==

Just write to the ombudsman and point to the kill-the-liberals post and the lie-to-the-IRS posts.

Maybe the Post doesn't care about trolling, but they have to care about staying within the law. Jake's gone too far now.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

After 35 years of depositions and court proceedings, it would be second nature for you too (what was it that Shakespeare said about all the lawyers ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"At least I'm not calling for the assassination"

The things you take comfort in would shame an honest man.

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Someone who has to constantly rephrase himself "for the record" . . . that's how honest, forthright people speak, right? "For the record, I didn't say what I just plainly said."

My gosh. That's the locution of a weasel, jaked. You're right out of a Dickens novel. Chapter 3, "Jake Penguid Explains Himself Again."

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

At least I'm not calling for the assassination of pResident Obama ...

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I've never urged readers to lie on withholding forms or murder anyone (your side is pro-abortion). I simply asked "dottydo" if her W-4 allowances were at nine (9). If not, and she can legally justify such change, that's not "lying" under oath (which is a federal crime, I'm looking at you Bubba ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse


If I had to pick, I'd say Cap and Trade was the one thing he could have let wait a year. But then, he didn't really push much on that one.

If you accept the premise (and I do) that fixing healthcare is part of the long term fix of the economy, then it needs to get done. And if you only worry about short-term fixes of the economy, then what's the point?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Those of you who write to the ombudsman should note that since there is some moderation to these sections (not that I've seen it), the Post is liable for what appears here. This is not true if entirely unmoderated, but if a single post is deleted for foul language, incivility, or any other reason. and other posts remain, including copyright violations or criminal advocacy, the fact that there is moderation but these posts remain can be legally construed as approval by the Post.

Recent posts have urged readers to lie on withholding forms, and today we have this murder post.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Man, conservatives, it's a lot of work reversing reality, isn't it? That's why you all have to join hands and shove together when CC feeds you a little puff of fair wind like this post. Haul away you rolling kings! Heave away, haul away . . .

Well, with strong backs the likes of jaked and dottydo and zouk pulling on your side, what could possibly go wrong? Victory is certain. Indeed.

(Eyes rolling)

Now, looking at actual events, rather than polls of people's impressions of feelings about events they may or may not understand, what's this other story over here? Sotomayor approved . . . extension of Clunker bill moves to Senate . . . hostages freed from N. Korea . . .

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

tattle-tale

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

ombudsman@washpost.com

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Funny, though, that "chrisfox8" is no where to be seen with admonitions of "tattle-tale" or "brown-noser" to you ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

LOL, drindl! Given the horrific choice of liberals or (as posted below) school children / women in the aerobics class, I'd have to choose liberals -- any reasonable person would -- pro-CHOICE, that's your slogan, right?

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"I agree it would be better to have a lunatic who has the money to be able to carry an AK-47 and routinely massacre groups of liberals. Call it "Really-Late Term Abortion"

This is not funny, and I have reported it. I suggest the rest of you do the same.

I intend to contact the Post ombudsman as well. Some of the posters on this site have really gotten out of hand. Too far is too far.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland, fighting the good fight!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 6, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 wrote: "My question to you is this: if you have such an expansive view of "General Welfare", where does it end? Free dental care? Free appliances? Free cars? Free vacations? All make our lives better, and add to our "general welfare", so why not?"

The stipulation is only that the provision be applied equally. So it has no limit except what limits Congress wants to apply and that it be applied equally. If Congress wanted the things you mention there is nothing to stop them as long as they are applied to the General Welfare (e.g., equally). Madison said so himself in 1800. Sorry if that bursts your bubble but it explains all that is around you.

dbw1 wrote: "All you have to do to expose the fallacy of 'progressive' ideology is take it to it's logical conclusion...."

Not liking what the Constitution allows does not invalidate the Constitution. Promoting the general welfare was used to establish the Library of Congress in 1800. You'd think someone back then would have raised their voices to such a violation of the Consitution which was very young then and most of its designers still alive.

Posted by: Fate1 | August 6, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse


And if that nutjob in Pennsylvania was carrying a muzzleloading flintlock, he'd have only gotten off one shot before being pummeled by a roomful of women. Which is what he probably wanted anyway.

Then again, he'd have to save his last shot for himself, so....

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

If only some of those women in the aerobics class had been carrying concealed weapons that nutjob in Pennsylvania wouldn't've been able to fire 52 rounds into the room.

==

And if only kindergartners were allowed to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment® of the Bill of Rights™ of the Constitution© of the United States of America®™©, why, we would never have another nutbar shooting up a schoolyard.

The deterrent power of concealed weapons is limitless

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse


Thank you Fred52. The "public option" would be no more a "government-run health care plan" than Medicare.

The same insurance bureaucrats that currently determine our collective health in private plans will do so in the public option. But, as with Medicare, costs will be lower.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

DwightCollins:

It IS about how much [wrong] he tried to do. See "little monkey" parable below.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

But kudos to you for giving a clear glimpse to others as to what most liberals think of our Constitution. Shoot first, ask questions later....

==

No.

Do the right thing, and update the document too.

I'm not impressed with arguments against doing the right thing and based on the omniscience of people dead two hundred years, before the age of automatic weapons and nuclear bombs.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

There have been quite a few references to Medicare being a government run health care program. It may be financed with federal funds and some coverage decisions made federally but contrary to general understanding, Medicare is not a government run health care option.

The center for medicare/medicaid services contracts administration of the system to Fiscal intermediaries (FIs). Insurance companies like Blue Cross and Trailblazers are contracted to run the system. What is covered by one may not be covered by another and the rules can be different for providers depending on which Fiscal intermediary providers use. Not alway but it does happen.

Interestingly, the insurance companies being demonized run the current government healthcare system and make a profit doing so.

Posted by: Fred52 | August 6, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

it's not a matter of how much he is trying to do, but rather how much did he mess up along the way...
and as things get messed up, how will it effect the dems in 2009 and 2010...

Posted by: DwightCollins | August 6, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

So Americans would rather have nothing get done and for Obama to sit on his hands? I don't believe it...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | August 6, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I agree it would be better to have a lunatic who has the money to be able to carry an AK-47 and routinely massacre groups of liberals. Call it "Really-Late Term Abortion" ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse


What the Constitution did very well, was the system of checks and balances. What stops the Congress from enacting laws to provide for free *everything* for *everybody* is that they all know they'd never get re-elected, the president would veto it, etc. etc.

If you don't like the direction the country is going, you just have to get a majority of the voters in the country to agree with you. Good luck with that.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"this is where the 2nd amendment has gotten us."

If only some of those women in the aerobics class had been carrying concealed weapons that nutjob in Pennsylvania wouldn't've been able to fire 52 rounds into the room.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 6, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker:

Please (re-)read Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:
"When it comes to honoring the Constitution versus acting morally, I say jack the Constitution. Amend it when there's time."

While I think your assumption of who's "acting morally" can be debated, I'm still stunned. That's one of the most honest things I've seen your write.

Granted, most 'progressives' agree with you, which is why they tend to favor packing courts with activist judges who are willing to rule by fiat, as opposed to actually using the messy process that is "democracy" to win hearts and minds over to their way of thinking.

But kudos to you for giving a clear glimpse to others as to what most liberals think of our Constitution. Shoot first, ask questions later....

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"Too bad he didn't have a clue about protecting us DURING 2001."

Call it a mulligan.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 6, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"That is equivalent to arguing that They recognized the right to bear arms, but did not foresee what "arms" science might devise, so we should limit the Second Amendment to the technologies available at the time of the writing."

What a great idea. I cannot imagine that they would have wanted any lunatic who has the money to be able to carry an AK-47 routinely massacre groups of schoolchildren. Yet, this is where the 2nd amendment has gotten us.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

wheeljc:

Thanks for reminding me, I knew there were many more unfulfilled campaign promises : )

Fate1:

No, perhaps YOU should read the Constitution, including the part you so blithely dismissed (since it includes the words "Armies" and "land and naval Forces" despite your assertion to the contrary). Once you tell me you have actually read it, I would be happy to debate your points. BTW: I already made your point about "Air Force" so you should have anticipated me being fine with abolishing that branch -- every AF plane could easily be transferred to the Army, Navy, Marines, or Coast Guard -- FDA is clearly within the interstate commerce clause. What else were you yapping about?

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

wheeljc wrote: "Folks, we seem to have a band from Chicago who will FIRE; then GET READY; and finally, AIM. Obama is beginning to make George Bush appear as Einstein!"

No one can make Bush look like Einstein.

wheeljc wrote: "Why can this Team Obama not realize that in America, TAX BREAKS WORK!! Why doesn’t TEAM OBAMA TAKE A PAGE FROM JFK’s Playbook??"

Maybe because after 8 years of lowering taxes we went from a surplus to huge deficits and then a collapsed economy, or is that what you call tax breaks working

Posted by: Fate1 | August 6, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse


Yes, yes, yes! Let's all demand our right to hang a muzzleloading flintlock over the mantle!

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

It's funny whenever a liberal tells me to read the Constitution, when at every turn it's apparant the Constitution is never more than a pesky hurdle to overcome to most liberals.

==

This from the guy who always ignores the first fourteen words of the Second Amendment

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"GWB kept us safe from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 2001. Let's see if pResident Obama can do the same."
Posted by: JakeD

Too bad he didn't get the infrastructure in Greater New Orleans repaired before Hurricane Katrina, despite all the warnings years beforehand of its defects. Heckuva job, Bushie!

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 6, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Fate1:
"Please read and understand your Constitution instead of listening to idealogues for its meanings."

It's funny whenever a liberal tells me to read the Constitution, when at every turn it's apparant the Constitution is never more than a pesky hurdle to overcome to most liberals.

Using the "General Welfare" clause as an open-ended grant of power to Congress is a fallacy. James Madison, when asked if the "General Welfare" clause was a grant of additional powers, said:
"If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once." It's obvious the clause was very limited in it's scope to the protection of the country (that's why it's tied with an "and" to "Common Defence").

I think Madison made it pretty clear that the framers did not intend for the "General Welfare" clause to open the door wide to every 'progressive' policy that purports to be smarter than the citizens in knowing what's best for them, and wants to take ever more freedoms away.

My question to you is this: if you have such an expansive view of "General Welfare", where does it end? Free dental care? Free appliances? Free cars? Free vacations? All make our lives better, and add to our "general welfare", so why not?

All you have to do to expose the fallacy of 'progressive' ideology is take it to it's logical conclusion....

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Another 'bash President Obama' article from Chris C in the WaPo.

As Gomer Pyle would say; "surprise, surprise, surprise."

In case you haven't noticed, Chris does this about 5 times a week.

Good luck with that Chris. Let me know how it works out for ya.

Posted by: Heerman532 | August 6, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to honoring the Constitution versus acting morally, I say jack the Constitution. Amend it when there's time.

The signatories weren't omniscient. That's why there's a Bill of Rights.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

That's not true (since EVERY Founding Father recognized the right of CITIZENS to bear arms, but none thought that free healthcare was such a right). You are mixing apples and oranges.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:12 PM

___________________________

They also recognized the need for the Government to provide for the General Welfare.

You argue that they did not forsee that that would lead to public Health Care.

That is equivalent to arguing that They recognized the right to bear arms, but did not foresee what "arms" science might devise, so we should limit the Second Amendment to the technologies available at the time of the writing.

Posted by: sourpuss | August 6, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

GWB kept us safe from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 2001.

==

There were as many terrorist attacks in the seven years after 9/11 as there were in the seven years before, and not one fewer.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

JFK's playbook? Yes, by all means eliminate the top tax rate of 91%.

There, another accomplishment.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

President Obama had to take on the worst financial mess left to any President since the Great Depression. He is dealing with two undeclared wars started by the previous administration which did its best to blame the wrong individual for 9/11 and which used both conflicts as an excuse to enrich its VP's cronies. He is trying to provide US citizens with the health care which other civilized societies in the world have provided to their citizens as a matter of right for decades. Any President working on only those three issues would have an overly full plate. He's doing a great job and will continue to have my support.

Posted by: LurayDemocrat | August 6, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I think we are too obsessed with the founding fathers. No doubt about their vision, wisdom, ability and intelligence. But, they were also men of that time. Most of them kept slaves.

Posted by: PD11 | August 6, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

You can go over to my post on the "44" blog to see more detail of the fakeness of this "50 million" uninsured number. Conservative estimates put it around 8 million

==

I'm not interested in "conservative estimates"

Conservatives are liars.

The figure is accruate.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"GWB kept us safe from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 2001. Let's see if pResident Obama can do the same."
Posted by: JakeD

Too bad he didn't have a clue about protecting us DURING 2001.

Posted by: Fate1 | August 6, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Taken on Too Much?? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT, and there is a 'gloom' taking over in parts of the country that will do in the incumbents -- regardless of party. Faith and confidence is being lost in Obama on a daily basis -- the polls are only a small part of it!

I really do not think that Obama knows what he is doing!! It seems that he has a 'CASH FOR CLUNKERS' plan way too often!!

*Cabinet selection (way too many tax cheaters, including the Sec of Treasury)

*Overseas apology tours

*TARP execution (Over 60 small banks have closed, while those entities who received TARP money (OUR MONEY) are paying out big bonuses! And…..where are those renegotiated loans to keep folks from foreclosure? Obama promised this back in the Spring!)

*Stimulus execution (Have your job yet??)

*Auto plan to preclude bankruptcy (GM & Chrysler both go bankrupt!)

*CZAR Creation (I lost count at 34! Just how many do you think would pass a senate confirmation?)

*The GITMO mess! We have enemy combatants safely located at GITMO. WHY BRING THEM TO A HOMETOWN NEAR YOU? Want their friends demonstrating in your hometown? WHY DID OBAMA DO THIS?

*The Prof Gates moment when he condemned a police department before knowing the facts

*CASH FOR CLUNKERS (WOW – Is this a teachable moment in ‘PLANNING’?)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


..AND NOW, He wants to take over the Energy Sector and YOUR AND MY HEALTH CARE!!!! Do you trust your future health care to him?? (AND, IF YOU SEE EMAILS OR INFORMATION WHICH IS ‘ANTI-OBAMACARE’ SEND IT TO THE WHITEHOUSE AT flag@whitehouse.gov
THEY ARE SHOWING DESPARATION!! WHY????)

Folks, we seem to have a band from Chicago who will FIRE; then GET READY; and finally, AIM. Obama is beginning to make George Bush appear as Einstein!

Why can this Team Obama not realize that in America, TAX BREAKS WORK!! Why doesn’t TEAM OBAMA TAKE A PAGE FROM JFK’s Playbook??

Posted by: wheeljc | August 6, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Jaked wrote: "as for "how so?", I already posted the powers delegated to the federal government (below) "Medicare" not being one of them. Did you read through that?"

You copied/pasted Article1, Section8. That is your argument? Are you saying that "promote the general welfare" means nothing and cannot be used to provide Medicare but Medicare must be specifically spelled out? I don't think you understand the Constitution. If you were correct then no federal agency would be consitutional including the FAA, HHS, DOE, DOT, etc. The federal highway system was illegally built. Creation of the Air Force was illegal as was NASA, the CDC. FDA, etc.

Just how did all this happen? Was the supreme court just sitting on its hands? Did no one have the gumption to challenge these unconstitutional agencies? There is no mention of an Army or Air Force, just a Militia. There is mention of a Navy however, Whew! Good thing or we'd have to sink a lot of our ships to be in compliance with the Constitution.

Get a clue, read a book on the Constitution and understand what it actually means instead of what you wish it meant.

Posted by: Fate1 | August 6, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

That's not true (since EVERY Founding Father recognized the right of CITIZENS to bear arms, but none thought that free healthcare was such a right). You are mixing apples and oranges.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse


Sad, isn't it? 31 Republican Senators whose strict constructionist understanding of the "advise and consent" clause does not trump their fear of the NRA.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"If you're so bitter about Obama's progressive agenda, go punch a wall. Real hard. And know that your broken metacarpals will be treated."

Who's bitter? Just don't believe in the fantasy world and economics of today's NeoCom Statist Destructionist Party. And I'm sure I will be treated real fast from the people who were going to use public campaign financing, who weren't going o run private enterprises, who were going to penalize those who moved jobs out the country, so forth and so on. I do believe their promises!

Posted by: leapin | August 6, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

blkisin:

GWB kept us safe from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 2001. Let's see if pResident Obama can do the same.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

The most accurate poll is the Rasmussen Poll, and that had Marxist Bozo Obama's job approval rating for 8/6/09 at 49% approve to 51% disapprove (from a 65% approve to 30% disapprove on 1/21/09). This high disapproval rate is despite the fact that the Democrap Socialist--controlled Main Stream Media has been totally and completely in the tank with him, and has censored (or tried to) every bit of negative news that could do political damage. When you consiter further that he's still on his honeymoon, and the fact that just about every African-American in the USA--who all obviously voted for him only because he's black and a tribal member--will continue to support him no matter what he does, Obama's negative job disapproval numbers with the rest of all Americans is sinking like a rock in the ocean. It's pretty obvious already that Barack Obama will probably surpass Jimmy Carter as the worst president this country has ever had, with disapproval numbers to match by the time he gets kicked out of office in 2012. The only support he'll have left by then will be the racist blacks--who could care less what he does to our country, as long as he's black--and his facist, Communist, Socialist (depending on degree of fanaticism) liberal base like the ones posting here.

Posted by: armpeg | August 6, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

The Founding Fathers would have stricken the words "general Welfare" (or, at the very least, not "incorrectly capitalized" it) if they could have guessed it being twisted into what the Left demand today. Alexis de Tocqueville correctly predicted that such a result would eventually bring about America's demise.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:56 PM

_____________________________

But they didn't, so this is the document we work from.

I could state with equal authority that, he they known the future, they would have deleted the Second Amendment, or at least written it more clearly.

Posted by: sourpuss | August 6, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Congrats to "mnteng" for guessing closest in the Sotomayor Pool (67-31).

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Only the good hardworking white folks would dare to ask if President Obama is doing or taking on too much. While the majority of colored folks are asking did GEORGE BUSH do anything other than use division to divert attention while the economy went down the tube and his oil buddy got richer. WHY DIDNT THE WHITE FOLKS ASK GEORGE BUSH THE SAME QUESTION?

Posted by: blkisin | August 6, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Fate1:

The Marines are NOT Un-Constitutional because they are part of the "Navy". I think a better retort for your side is to complain about the "Air Force" (because human flight had not yet been discovered ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:
"On the other side, 50+ million who now have to go the ER when they're to sick to ignore it anymore will now get much cheaper health care. There's got to be some savings there."

You can go over to my post on the "44" blog to see more detail of the fakeness of this "50 million" uninsured number. Conservative estimates put it around 8 million. The Democrat-run CBO says it's probably more like 21 million. Either way, 8-21 million is a far cry from the "50 million" number Democrats keep using.

As far as 'cost savings', I'm willing to make this deal with any liberal who will take it: implement malpractice lawsuit limits, & give them 2-3 years to take hold. Let's see where our health care costs are after that, and if they are still escalating I'm willing to talk about public option and even single payer.

Like I said earlier, I know some practicioners, and I don't think it's disputable that most of the costs Democrats cry about coming from "over-care" (i.e., ordering multiple and unnecessary tests) are the result of practioners being scared to death of being sued. Take the fear of practice-bankrupting lawsuits out of the way (except for extreme negligence), and see what happens to health care costs.

Alas, that will probably never happen, though. A look at the contributor records to Democrat campaigns tells me why there are no limits targeting trial lawyers contained within either Democrat plan being considered.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

GJonahJameson:

What about Closing GTMO, gay rights, getting out of Iraq, prosecuting torture and "war crimes", not signing legislation until the public has has five (5) days to review and comment, etc.? Those were ALL promised during the campaign too.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse


I'm so glad that Jake has a direct link to the ghosts of the founding fathers.

The rest of us are left to deal with the current administration, the current congress, and the current Supreme Court. Jake, if only you could convince Chief Justice Roberts to take up your lawsuit against Obama for providing unconstitutional Medicare to Americans, the world would be set right.

What's that? No lawsuit? YOU take advantage of unconstitutional Medicare? Never mind.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

No, Obama has not taken on too much. He understands that with term limits, even if a president is re-elected, any president has about six years to accomplish what needs to get done. And he was given a plateful, a full-blown recession-depression with the largest unemployment since the great depression, huge record breaking numbers uninsured, people losing retirement and homes, rich CEOs and corporations making millions while ordinary people are in distress.

If Obama were doing any less, your poll question would be, "Is Obama doing enough?" Is he doing it all perfectly? No, he has made mistakes, but he certainly cares about the distress of ordinary people and is doing his best to help them in their distress. That's a whole lot more than happened in the last eight years.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | August 6, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 wrote: "But me going to my doctor 10 minutes from my house doesn't qualify as 'interstate commerce'. Unless I live on the border and am driving across it, I suppose...but I would wager that the vast majority of Americans receive their health care within the state where they live, so I don't think the Article I Section 8 would really apply."

Article 1, Section 8 say the following plus a lot more:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [...]"

Its that "provide for the general welfare" that allows congress to fund Medicare. That is why there has been NO litigant who has gone before the court to argue against the constitutionality of Medicare. Arguing that Medicare is unconstitutional is akin to arguing that the Marines are unconstitutional. Please read and understand your Constitution instead of listening to idealogues for its meanings.

Posted by: Fate1 | August 6, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Providing for the General Welfare sounds a lot like universal healthcare, doesn't it?

==

It does, to anyone for whom the essence of public policy isn't "my money"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Again, with the questions when YOU were the one who refused to answer mine ...

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama can accomplish much more because he doesn't spend most of the day riding his bike.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

CNN?

Lou DObbs the Birther?

Pew poll finds that a plurality of Republicans are not embarrassed by the Obama birther conspiracy. In fact, they wish the media spent more time on it.

Posted by: sasha2008 | August 6, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

The Founding Fathers would have stricken the words "general Welfare" (or, at the very least, not "incorrectly capitalized" it) if they could have guessed it being twisted into what the Left demand today. Alexis de Tocqueville correctly predicted that such a result would eventually bring about America's demise.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"drindl:

Too bad YOU refused to answer my previous questions to you, in a civil manner; you should have thought about the consequences back then."


LOL -- he thinks I care. I'm just pointing out that you are a hypocrite, Joked -- I don't want to talk to you. Why would I waste my time?

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, sourpuss! Providing for the General Welfare of the United States is a much more cogent argument than regulating interstate commerce.

Providing for the General Welfare sounds a lot like universal healthcare, doesn't it?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"And Medicare’s status as a government program allows it to run without the need to generate profit, resulting in administrative costs that are a fraction of those of private plans."

More like - without a need to generate a profit because it's backed by the supposedly "unlimited" dollars of those of us that pay taxes.

Posted by: leapin | August 6, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Too bad YOU refused to answer my previous questions to you, in a civil manner; you should have thought about the consequences back then.

Fate1:

Yes, I am, and I was critical of Bush and the GOP for expanding, rather than cutting Part D -- of course, I want the FEDERAL Dept. of Education abolished as well, so I was critical of Reagan for not doing so -- as for "how so?", I already posted the powers delegated to the federal government (below) "Medicare" not being one of them. Did you read through that?

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I think it would be accurate to say not that President Obama has taken on too many issues for his own good, but too many issues for the liking of the people with whom he needs to collaborate.

Obama's endeavor could be to fix all of the nation's ills at light speed, but the rest of the government doesn't like to move that fast.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | August 6, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

It would be great to have free food, free autos, free entertainment, besides free healthcare. Houses are sort of expensive. If we could get some kind of free housing or at least no or small interest mortgages...Oh wait! We already tried that.

==

Logical fallacy: slippery slope.

If you're so bitter about Obama's progressive agenda, go punch a wall. Real hard. And know that your broken metacarpals will be treated.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

As for the Constitutionality. . .

"Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

You can squeeze a lot into "provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States", as well.

Posted by: sourpuss | August 6, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse


dbw1: Is Medicare constitutional or unconstitutional? It has been around long enough for our Supreme Court to have addressed it if necessary.

If you pay your doctor for services, that's not interstate commerce. If your doctor bills your insurance company, and that insurance company is in another state, or operates in another state, that is interstate commerce.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you should go back to school, Jake.

Grade school.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Answer the question, Joked. Are you on Medicare?

You're 72 years old and you've said you were.


"Even though conservatives continually attack the government’s ability to run public health plans, they have tacitly admitted the popularity and effectiveness of programs like Medicare. Faced with an amendment by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) that would’ve eliminated Medicare, not a single member of Congress voted for it. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), another conservative who has railed against a government-run health care plan, actually denounced a public option in health care while declaring his support for Medicare on the very same day. Despite the chorus of attacks from the right, the public remains overwhelmingly in favor of the choice of government coverage.

Reflecting on Laffer’s remarks, Paul Krugman laments, “The prejudice against government seems to have become free-floating, unattached to any actual experience.”

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"Medicare is Un-Constitutional as well."
Posted by: JakeD

How so? No one has challenged its constitutionality in 44 years.

And if Medicare is unconstitutional so is Medicare Part D, which Bush and the republicans championed. Are you saying this Bush program is unconstitutional?

Posted by: Fate1 | August 6, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Calling all reasonable citizens....PLEASE read..think..listen..debate the content of the bill.

PLEASE don't lose your sanity,
by any hannity.
Or, don't just cave in,
to any levin.
Or, don't eat the garbage,
served by any savage.
Let's debate the content,
not RUSH to judgement!!

Posted by: PD11 | August 6, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

It would be great to have free food, free autos, free entertainment, besides free healthcare. Houses are sort of expensive. If we could get some kind of free housing or at least no or small interest mortgages...Oh wait! We already tried that.

Posted by: leapin | August 6, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"Reagan administration economist Art Laffer appeared on CNN’s Newsroom yesterday to debate health care with CAP Senior Fellow Judy Feder. At the height of the debate, Laffer offered a curious argument against health care reform:

LAFFER: I mean, if you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait until you see Medicare, Medicaid, and health care done by the government"

The reality is that we don’t have to “wait” for the government to take over Medicaid and Medicare because they are both already government-run programs.

Many opponents of a public health insurance option across the country don’t realize that we already have a number of highly successful government-run health care programs. At a recent town hall meeting in Simpsonville, South Carolina, Rep. Robert Inglis (R-SC) was approached by a constituent who demanded that he keep his “government hands out of Medicare.” Inglis tried to explain to the constituent that his coverage is “being provided by the government,” but the constituent refused to believe it.

Medicare, the government-run single-payer coverage system for the elderly, is particularly popular. A 2009 study by the Commonwealth Foundation found that Medicare recipients reported greater satisfaction with their plans than those in employer-sponsored coverage by wide margins. And Medicare’s status as a government program allows it to run without the need to generate profit, resulting in administrative costs that are a fraction of those of private plans.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

I thought you were going to "ignore" me?

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Medicare is Un-Constitutional as well.

==

This from a guy who claims to be a lawyer from a major university!

(1) factually wrong

(2) incorrectly punctuated

(3) incorrectly capitalized.

While "Constitution" is a proper noun when it refers to the US document, "constitutional" is an adjective. So is "unconstitutional."

You're not a lawyer. I don't think you're even educated past high school, if you even finished it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

But yet, you are on Medicare, aren't you Joked?

You have said so before. Why didn't you turn it down, hypocrite?

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:
"Article 1, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and to pass all laws Necessary and Proper to do so. Congress has used this clause to stick their noses into all manner of business."

True. But me going to my doctor 10 minutes from my house doesn't qualify as 'interstate commerce'. Unless I live on the border and am driving across it, I suppose...but I would wager that the vast majority of Americans receive their health care within the state where they live, so I don't think the Article I Section 8 would really apply.

But you are right...the Constitution hasn't stopped liberals before :o).

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama is doing too much.

Let's re-elect that last dude. I miss little goat pete.

Posted by: jamdn463 | August 6, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

dottydo:

Keep up the good fight!

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

dtw1: Obviously, there will not be a $110/month line item added to my premium. The cost will be bourne somewhere, and if it is in higher taxes, I will pay them.

If my premiums go up, I will pay that as well. I would prefer a single payer system, or at least a public option, but I will take what I can get.

I'm glad there are at least some people in your family with a heart.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Not at all! I disagree with General Powell on this one. President Obama will achieve even more after health care reform. He takes the job seriously and he is sincere to improve our lives and future.

Now President Obama has got experience that will help him do even better. Just watch!

Posted by: dummy4peace | August 6, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

What does Colin Powell know about being President?

Thank goodness, he has no direct experience. Whenever given an opportunity to lie in order to defend the status quo, Powell has taken it. Not to mention that little "blot on his record" the Iraq WarMongering Lies speech he gave at the United Nations.

Posted by: TeddySanFran | August 6, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

@dbw: OK, let's say insurance premiums or taxes go up. Granting for the sake of argument only.

On the other side, 50+ million who now have to go the ER when they're tơ sick to ignore it anymore will now get much cheaper health care. There's got to be some savings there.

And even if there isn't, so what?

I don't mind paying more taxes if the benefit is to live in a significantly more just society. Do you?

If you're just going to respond with some screed about illegal aliens and Democrats wasting "my money," don't even bother.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:
"Of course nothing in the Constitution *requires* the government to give us health care, but it does not prevent it either."

I quote from the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I don't think that is all that ambiguous, but liberals I'm sure have a different perspective. If the writers of the Constitution did not give specific power to the Federal government to provide health care service, wouldn't the 10th amendment imply that's not within their power to take from 'the people'?

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

mstratas:

Closing GTMO, gay rights, getting out of Iraq, prosecuting torture and "war crimes", etc.?

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Too Much Obama?


Mr. Biden, you have maintained that smiling bulldog stance of a well seasoned and well oiled politician, who has withstood the test of year of time, now holding onto your position as number 2 ,.....just waiting to bite this little yapping crisis puppy's head off.

This Nation is enmasse ready for your swear in as President of the US Constitutional Republic of the United States Of America, MR. BIDEN.

Welcome aboard Mr. Biden, now take this Titanic off the bottom, and plot her course for the Stars and beyond.

Posted by: dottydo | August 6, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse


Article 1, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and to pass all laws Necessary and Proper to do so. Congress has used this clause to stick their noses into all manner of business.

It is up to the United States Supreme Court to decide if they have overstepped their bounds. So far, they have not.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Medicare is Un-Constitutional as well.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

TAX PAYER REVOLT

==

some "revolution" .. a couple of smokers waving signs with hammer an' sickles forming the O in Obama. Wow.

Sotomayor confirmed with only nine Republican votes, 31 shooting their careers between the eyes. Watch out for screams of "reverse discrimination" and "gun grabbers" and more, more, more racist dog-whistle

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

jaked: Pres. Obama is accomplishing all that he said he would do in 6-1/2 months, healthcare is next. Sotomayor is confirmed, yes!!! Stimulus passed in 1 month and starting to show shoots, yes!!! Republicans can wish for Obama's failure, they will be disappointed. You may talk about a little black monkey all you want, irrelevant...

Posted by: mstratas | August 6, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:
"Or about $110 per month for my family. My guess is my premiums would go up by more than that much in my current plan."

Ok, have to call you out on more funny math. Couple problems with your assumptions:
1) the $110/mo you derived for your family's portion of the $1 trillion is just the cost to cover other people. This is not the cost of YOUR insurance.
2) your premiums will escalate anyway, assuming you are still gainfully employed. Your insurance carrier, once required to cover people at higher risk of sickness and disease, will have to raise your premiums even higher than they would have...since it would be 'unfair' in Liberal Land to charge higher-risk people more for their health care.

So your family will be paying (at least) $110/month to cover other people, AND your premiums will escalate. It's not one or the other...

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse


Regulation of the insurance industry falls under Article 1, Section 8. Interstate commerce. Necessary and Proper Clause. Etc, etc.

Of course nothing in the Constitution *requires* the government to give us health care, but it does not prevent it either.

If you believe that Medicare is constitutional, then a health care plan for the rest of us is also constitutional.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

dottydo:

Are your W-4 allowances at nine (9)?

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Gator-ron:

It's not "idle" since I can read Art, I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution -- "Cash for Clunkers" is not mentioned -- here are the ONLY powers delegated to Congress from the States (which retained ALL OTHER POWERS):

Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [ONLY, everything else is reserved to the States].

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Obamanation refused to hear "No" on bailouts, and is currently broke from the resolve of the TAX PAYER REVOLT, who placed no profit to tax for IRS coffers.
Obama is forced to confiscate Poppy black tar heroine, and release convicted criminals from Federal Prisons to market it, to even fund Obamaland.

Once again "NO" was not heard on Porkulous, and the Independent Party has swelled ranks in every State in the Nation, to be resolute in removing the bases electoral college from Obama's minions.
This has forced Obama to move to detain in Federal prisons illegals slated for deportion in States all across the Nation to illegally place as voters, just to fill that void in the base.


The people are saying "NO" to Obamacare and signing recall petitions on every member of THE HILL, THE CONGRESS, THE CABINET, THE CZARS, and Obama, to be registered forever in time with the Library of Congress, as the "will of the people" uneard by this regime.
Now the rumor is he will be signing the new illegal voters on and his military sworn to defend the President.


Is Obama Too Much???
YUP.

Now, the voice of "the people" enmasse, is calling for the immediate medical stand down of the NPD SOCIOPATHIC dual profiles of Obama, via the OBAMA JOKER face poster, that is sweeping the World that agrees. In response, he has now opened a snitch on thy neighbor plan, circa 1930 Hitler.

The odd thing is the Press empowered it all through, no stand up for the US Constitution.

IRS will be broke a long long long time, so about that LUAU Pig fest Obama check for Obamaland Obamacare advertising.....there is a Clown face throwing around Obama Joker face bills , you might go get. They are probably more valuable in the long run.

What Obama is representing now is being called formally :
The PERNICIOUS PARY....because the Democrats all left,

Posted by: dottydo | August 6, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

The debate on healthcare and his subordinate relationship to Pelosi are surprising. I think general perceptions of Obama's competence are dropping surprisingly rapidly, especially among centrists. The absurd "report fishy discussion" line on the White House website is a good example of an administration in serious trouble. In summary, I don't think Obama has taken on too much - I think his lack of competence is causing doubt.

Posted by: hill_marty | August 6, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The past 7 + months versus the previous 8 years..... Keep going Mr. President. .... And thank You.

Posted by: deepthroat21 | August 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Belief is not enough!! Let's debate. Just saying everybody knows this is this or that is that or liberals/conservatives are such and such will not help. We also should have open mind to accept good ideas even if our ideology does not accept it. It is better to be human and logical than to be liberal or conservative.

It's logic and acceptance that got us here not faith and rejection.

Posted by: PD11 | August 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:
"Free healthcare would also be constitutional."

Normally I don't argue much of what you say because although you definitely seem to bend left, you tend to be more fairminded than some on here. But I'm going to have to stop you on this one.

Read the 10th amendment, and then point me to the part of the Constitution you believe calls for the Federal government to provide health care.

There is also a big difference (in my opinion, at least) between handing out cash (cash-for-clunkers) and offering tax credits/deductions for things like mortgage interest expense. The first assumes all money is the governments to start with, and they hand it out as they see fit. Tax credits recognize the principle that money belongs to the private individual to start with, and via credits/deductions the government is essentially taking less from you.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I think it's just that people got so used to a President who did nothing that one who is accomplishing stuff is too much of a change.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Sotomeyor confirmed!

Haha, beat you to it, Chris.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Cash for Clunkers is unconstitutional like Obama is not the legitimate president of the United States. That is an idle observation of a man without judgement.

On the other hand as economic policy I do not agree with it. Doubt that it is more than a bonanza for people who would have been buyers of cars in the near term and it just moved the purchase forward by a quarter or two. I believe the idea for that came from the House not the president. Good politics, not good economics as far as I can tell.

Posted by: Gator-ron | August 6, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Just because he overtly and repeatedly promised change during the campaign, and the majority of people voted for him and an agenda of change, doesn't mean he *must* take on all these issues. I mean, wasn't he just saying that to get elected?

Posted by: molsonmich | August 6, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

OK, Obama didn't get a healthcare bill by the August recess, but they're making progress.

Please name one other thing that Obama has attempted and not gotten done.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:
"Funny how your "financial analytical" position ignores any moral dimension around people dying of treatable illness."

My wife is a practioner who spends a day per month working at a clinic, without pay, to help care for those who are poorand uninsured. Her sister is a doctor who left private practice to run a full-time clinic in the inner-city that provides health care for the poor and uninsured.

So I'm quite familiar with the 'moral dimension'. What I'm not is egotistical enough to believe that those of us with conservative political beliefs are the only ones with compassion for these folks....unlike liberals, who think they are the only compassionate people on the planet.

We simply don't believe a federal-government program is the best solution...and I believe there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that federal-run social programs are neither more-efficient, more cost-effective, or more capable at delivering better service.


Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Cash for clunkers is not unconstitutional. The government offers financial incentives for all sorts of economic activity, from home ownership to college education. Why is trading in a gas guzzler different?

Free washers and dryers would also be constitutional. And potentially stimulative, but not nearly as effective as the CARS program.

Free healthcare would also be constitutional. Too bad we won't get it.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Human being are not designed to accept big changes. But the time has come for us when somebody has to take action. Why not Obama? Staus quo (for over half a century) is not acceptable anymore. We should do something even if we are not 100% right. But, we should have a good debate to figure out the best posssible way. A good debate of course does not amount to what the Grand Obstructionist Populists are doing. The cost of perfect inaction will be much much more than less perfect action.

Posted by: PD11 | August 6, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Reuters
US food stamp list tops 34 million for first time

umemployment near 10%


yeah, obozo has taken on too much. Comeon, obozo is a total fool.

Posted by: charlietuna666 | August 6, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

dbw1:

No amount of reason will work with them (luckily, that will be their downfall).

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Human being are not designed to accept big changes. But sthe time has come for somebody has to take action. Why not Obama? Staus quo (for over half a century) is not acceptable anymore. We should do something even if we are not 100% right. But, we should have a good debate to figure out the best posssible way. A good debate of course does not amount to what the Grand Obstructionist Populists are doing.

Posted by: PD11 | August 6, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

If Obama were me he has taken on too many issues. He however appears to be well informed and conversant on all these issues. He sees our problems as a mosaic which is harming our competitiveness in the world. We are no longer vastly superior to the rest of the world except in military armament. We need to compete and he sees these issues as necessary for us to be successful economically.

Those who say he is taking on too many issues probably are overwhelmed by the amount of material involved in understanding issues.

I don't agree with Obama as much as I thought I would but on economics, I can not remember a president as well versed, at least not since the 70's.

Posted by: Gator-ron | August 6, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

mstratas:

Get used to not acheiving any of these goals because he bit off more than he can chew. Have you ever heard the story of the little monkey with his fist stuck in a jar because he held onto too many nuts in his hand?

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

And FYI, $1 trillion over ten years is less than a dollar a day per American.

Or about $110 per month for my family. My guess is my premiums would go up by more than that much in my current plan.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:
"...A number that ignores all the potential savings, since these cannot be calculated."

Actually, the number included a thorough study of any potential savings. The Democrat-run CBO concluded there aren't any.

What "can't be calculated" is the dreamy utopia that libera...errrr, 'progressives', believe will ensue once the government is running everything.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Cash for Clunkers" is un-Constitutional. What's next, after "free" healthcare, "free" washers & dryers?

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker:
"Cash for Clunkers has been wildly successful with the public..."

Yep, amazingly enough it turns out that when you hold out a fistful of other peoples money, a lot of people will take it. But it reminds me of Margaret Thatcher's old line: "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money."

Of course it also doesn't say much for the 'government efficiency' argument of public-option/single-payer honks that the government can't even make accurate forecasts and adequately manage a $1 billion dollar program, yet liberals believe the government will be able to handle a program 1,000 times larger than cash-for-clunkers.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse


The $1 trillion isn't just to cover the uninsured, its for all of the reforms. Regardless, I'd rather spend it saving American lives than killing Iraqis.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

People especially the conservatives are used to Bush's work output which was nil. Let's give them time to adjust to Pres. Obama who is very much a policy work horse. He is young, energetic, intelligent, full of ideas and want America to be leading again. Get used to it.

Posted by: mstratas | August 6, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

How much do you think it will cost? The Democrats say it will be $1 trillion.

==

A number that ignores all the potential savings, since these cannot be calculated.

Funny how your "financial analytical" position ignores any moral dimension around people dying of treatable illness. It's all about "taxpayer money," which is to say, "your money." This is the kind of crap that's killing this nation.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse


CC, I have to agree about Cash for Clunkers. You put out articles saying how the program is "running out of funds," like that's a bad thing--it means the program is very popular, and the stimulus money is working! That's why it's being extended.

More to the point, it definitely helped the 2nd quarter numbers look better. Consumer confidence goes up, spending increases--stimulus!!

By the end of the year, we'll be out of recession, a health care plan will have been passed, and we'll be talking about deficit reduction.

Pedal to the metal, Mr. President!

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Bush spent almost a trillion dollars on his Iraq folly! where were the Republican protests then? Republican's will always come up with money to kill, but to save an uninsured child or adult, "Hell No". Their Party is terminally ill, and I wish it would die! They have become a Party with no ideas, just vile, nasty unwelcome behaviour.

Posted by: kburnett1 | August 6, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"something like 85% of people are happy with their coverage."

something like 85% of numbers you pull out of your backside are made up.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 6, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S CURE FOR 'LACK OF FOCUS' MEME: ACT ON PRINCIPLE.

• Which is why "acted stupidly" may be Obama's finest moment.


*** The full text of my comment, updated from the original comment that I believe was intercepted and not allowed to post here by government surveillance operatives, again elicited the "held for blog owner" message (almost certainly not generated by WaPo).

That was the FOURTH comment today that would not post.

For those who are curious as to what would trigger such apparent censorship by surveillance operatives who apparently are unjustly targeting many American citizens... please scroll to the bottom of the comments section of the following ACLU thread:

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-government-mandate


Posted by: scrivener50 | August 6, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The Radical Street Activist in the White House is out of the closet. He is a Flaming Socialist, an Alinsky Thug, a Black Liberation Agitator and now we find he is paranoid.

==

I don't think it's Obama who's "paranoid"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:
"Then it won't be too expensive to cover them will it?"

How much do you think it will cost? The Democrats say it will be $1 trillion.

Now, keep in mind they also said cash-for-clunkers would be $1 billion. Looks like it will be at least 3 times that. They also said it would cost $70 million to build that new visitor center at the capitol. It cost over $600 million. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find ANY program Congress has approved that didn't run multiple times over their cost projections.

As a financial analyst, I say changing the entire system and spending $1 trillion dollars to cover half of the uninsured (that's right, neither Democrat plan would cover all of them) is not a good deal. If the cost comes in like it usually does (many times more than Democrat promises), this deal will be very bad for American taxpayers.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

The Fix
Anything that erodes that belief in Obama's competence -- ...cash for clunkers...

WTF??? Cash for Clunkers has been wildly successful with the public, so much so that it's needed to be extended. I'd call the competence with a capital C!

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 6, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama is trying to do WAY too much WAY too fast...congressmen aren't reading bills, public discussion is being cut very short, and we're arguing over a health care bill that doesn't even exist yet. I don't trust any politicians--R or D--enough to let then just push bills through like this.

In other news, Chris, Rand Paul officially declared for the KY senate seat:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5is_jE1B1Y9fH_V3jZMGSVnChWCEAD99SUIJG1

Posted by: lajdawg | August 6, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

great article

there is little doubt that Obama has taken on too much too soon

this would be true during good economic times and it is even more true in bad economic times

it is very surprising to me, as someone who advocated strongly for Obama, that his administration has come out swinging so wildly right out of the gate

it is probably the fault of the Democratic controlled Congress but a great leader needs to know how to stand up to his own party when need be

things are really beginning to look dicey for the Obama administration and if they don't start handling things better they will be in for a long and bloody Autumn...

Posted by: gthstonesman | August 6, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"simple simon, something like 85% of people are happy with their coverage."

So that leaves a small group of 45 million americans who aren't. And interestingly enough, 47 million americans are without health care. Dimwit.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 6, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

The Radical Street Activist in the White House is out of the closet. He is a Flaming Socialist, an Alinsky Thug, a Black Liberation Agitator and now we find he is paranoid. He is unable to take any criticism. He is so arrogant, egotistical that criticism of his Socialist agenda must be reported to his Administration. Barry is exposed for the Fraud that he is and yes, it is about him.

Posted by: ChangeWhat | August 6, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Healthcare IS an economic issue.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse


It's easy to be happy with your coverage when you are healthy and not making claims. The insurance company is pretty happy with you then, as well.

As for "keeping the good" --what's good about the current system? My company forced us into a "high deductible" plan, so in addition to my premiums I pay $3000 out-of-pocket before they kick in a penny. And I'm a professional earning $92K.

The insurance industry is playing a shell game and collecting the profits. The status quo is not acceptable.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"now 5 million out of 300 million is what percentage?"
--
Then it won't be too expensive to cover them will it?

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

...85% of people are happy with their coverage....

Tell that to the couple I met who discovered their 5 year old daughter had a rare brain disease and was told they'd have to come up with $100k, just to start or watch their kid have stroke after stroke. The father got so stressed out he had a heart attack, now they're in for $350k

Oh, btw: They had medical insurance.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

What is he supposed to do, ignore some these issues until they fix themselves?
two wars
a destroyed economy
a healthcare system with skyrocketing costs
WOT
and on and on and on.....

Posted by: JRM2 | August 6, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The Cash for Clunkers program is, by all accounts, working. So why would that be eroding Obama's brand? In so far as healthcare is concerned, reform is certainly necessary from an economic standpoint (as well as some others). That's been clear for decades. Forget bipartisanship. True to form, the Republicans aren't really interested in getting anything done (unless it involves cutting taxes on the wealthy or misleading the country into bogus foreign wars). Their main focus is tearing down the president. As such, Democrats ought to simply ram through meaningful health reform. The nation will thank them soon enough.

Posted by: CopyKinetics | August 6, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

simple simon, something like 85% of people are happy with their coverage.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 6, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Reduce the number by the illegal immigrants, the between coverage, the rich who choose not to join and you are left with about 5 million. now 5 million out of 300 million is what percentage?

Regardless, do you throw out everything to include a few more or keep the good stuff?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 6, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

President Obama's plate is over-flowing, but it is not "too much." Rather it's an indication of how little the previous administration did, and even more important, the lack of what was achieved.

Posted by: JaneB08 | August 6, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

This is the classic problem with simplistic poll questions. "Do you think Obama has taken on more issues than he should have?"
So a person saying "Yes" could be a person who wants Obama to press hard on universal health care;
or it could be a person who wanted him to put all his efforts into fixing the economy;
or it could be a person who wanted him to spend more time on social justice issues like Lilly Ledbetter and the minimum wage;
or it could be someone who wanted to him to use his energy hauling the crooked fianacial industry and the Bush administration into court;
or it could be a whole lot of Republicans who want him go clear brush.

A poll like this indicates nothing except that there was A LOT of stuff for Obama to tend to.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 6, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I dislike Obama's policy agenda Chrisfox but I do not personally dislike him. But his arrogance reminds me of the what the late Art Buckwald said about new administrations. He said they always come to Washington all cocksure and arrogant because they won the election. Its only after Washington chews them up a bit do they start to learn humility.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 6, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"there is a very small slice of the poor who slipped through the cracks."

I'd like to see that math explained further. 47 million of 300 million Americans don't have health insurance. How is it that over 15% of all Americans amounts to only 'a very small slice of the poor'? Firstly, 15% isn't exactly a 'small' slice. Secondly, that assumes that all 300 million Americans are poor. If nearly 80% of Americans consider themselves middle class, that means the 47 million either represent all of the poor, or some number of middle class Americans. Either way, you have to question the credibility of the initial claim.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 6, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

factoid alert: "much of obama's appeal is built around..." i can only speak for myself: pres. obama's appeal is that he works to make things better, as i would work to make things better, on various issues that confront our nation: health care reform, the economy, science, equal rights, to name a few. the president is a key factor, but not the only factor. members of congress also play a key role. much to dick cheney's and karl rove's chagrin, the president is not all powerful.

Posted by: gsteinum | August 6, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"Fact is our health care is good."

Typical 'money is no object' analysis. The question isn't whether our health care is 'good', the question is whether our health care dollars produce a good return on investment. Compared to every other first world country and some 2nd world countries, our return on investment is atrocious. The people who end up with the goose's golden eggs are happy with the system: big pharma & big insurance. Everyone else: tough luck.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 6, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza wants a close race so he's always boosting Republicans and short-selling Democrats. I'll be convinced when I see a poll that DOESN'T say the American people are disgusted with Republicans.

Posted by: kenonwenu | August 6, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Interesting phrasing that "Cash for Clunkers" might be a failure. Typically when a rebate program creates a rush of customers people consider it a success. But the media gotta sell papers so they focus on the negative "Cash for Clunkers running out of money" rather than "Cash for Clunkers stimulates massive car sales boost"

Posted by: kemurph | August 6, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

This is the President of the US. He has one of the toughest jobs in the world. He had better be able to do many things at once because so many things need to get done and most of these tasks are priorities.I want someone who can multi-task and work on many issues that affect Americans and America today. F the polls, Obama; keep on trying and don't get discouraged by the small minded, single issue parasites.

Posted by: mraymond10 | August 6, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

47 million uninsured. that was last months poll result. then we went through saving money. After we all got done laughing at those answers, they tried evil insurance companies. Keep trying Propoganda hunters. We are all still laughing at you.

Fact is our health care is good. there is a very small slice of the poor who slipped through the cracks. no need to kill the golden goose for a minor adjustment. that was already tried and failed on the economy. Everyone but the most committed (or should be) communist understand this now.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 6, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

the number (65%) was generated by cnn, which is also the site of birther co-conspirator lou dobbs.

Posted by: gsteinum | August 6, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama knew that the minute after he was inaugurated, there will be no guarantee that he will be re-elected in 2012. Thus when you are given the opportunity, you go big and you do what is right.
The irony is that the blue dog democrats are only worried about re-election, their own fate. 47 million people do not have health insurance, and somehow heath care reform is up for debate? How can anyone with strong morals sit there idly and accept this great social injustice. 47 million uninsured! Wow!! And you call this a great country?

Posted by: AB68 | August 6, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

building support for the health care reform efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>>

good one. Every time he opens his mouth the polls drop another five points. Lib math: building = destroying.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 6, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Oh for the days not so long ago when we had a president who could barely do one thing at a time, usually very badly.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 6, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

And of course, if Obama WASN'T tackling health care reform and climate change, moronic hacks like Cillizza here would be mindlessly repeating GOP talking points about broken campaign promises.

Best corporate media money can buy.

Posted by: PeterPrinciple | August 6, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

What the President took on but should not have was calling the Cambridge cops 'stupid'. That distracted from the necessary work of building support for the health care reform efforts, which are a critical component of addressing long-term budget shortfalls.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 6, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

It's called chewing gum and walking at the same time - Bush was bad at it. Obama is simply brilliant.

Posted by: mstratas | August 6, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Pres. Obama was greeted with many problems that Bush left unfinished: 2 wars, collapsed financial system, job loss of gargantuan proportion, deficit, banks failures, etc. They have to be dealt with immediately and Obama did with competence! The Republican enemies will not, never, give an inch and admit that Obama has done very well in 6 months what Bush demolished in 8 years. The REpublican mantra of NO is a severe reaction to Obama's success. The Republicans can stall as much as they like but they are failing. The econ. stimulus is starting to take effect, job loss has abated, people are buying cars, etc. Poor Republicans, their hatred is bad karma.

Posted by: mstratas | August 6, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

No, he has not taken on too much. What he has not done is use his bully pulpit enough in the face of Republican obstructionism. And I doubt he will use it in the future.

Next election I'll be staying home. The Democrats are a bunch of weaklings even though they are in a dominant position, and the Republicans are the dregs of the earth.

Posted by: Gatsby10 | August 6, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs to learn to shut up once in awhile. We see him on TV every single day

==

You watch *television*?!?

Why?

Last time I turned houseplant Reagan was in his first term. And it's gotten a whole lot worse since then.

I think you just dislike Obama.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the job requires more than most of us can imagine giving to any life function. That makes it comfortable for even the most ardent BHO supporter to feel an empathetic sense of 'too much'!

Thus I would not assume that the poll shows a rise in opposition. Read the "Truman" bio by David McCullough and within thirty pages you will be exhausted.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 6, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Gee, make up your mind. Is he incapable of getting anything passed, or is he spending like crazy?

The stimulus bill took a few days more than intended. Other than that, everything has moved pretty much according to plan until the healthcare debate.

If Obama had given Congress until November to pass healthcare, then the important debates and negotiations going on now would not have occured until October. Stalling and missing deadlines are congressmen's bread and butter.

Maybe 65% of people think he's doing "too much" but how many thing he's not doing enough on *their* pet issue?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama should take a lesson from Bubba, he reframed from speaking yesterday. As Jefferson said about Washington "He has the gift of silence". Obama needs to learn to shut up once in awhile. We see him on TV every single day and its getting old. Take a vacation, President Obama, your kids and the country needs it about now.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 6, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Hmm I guess politicians can't/shouldn't multitask - unlike those of us in the REAL world who are forced to confront several issues throughout the day. Chris, this is an absurd argument. Maybe if our previous president had been more of a multi-tasker our current one wouldn't have had so many things to deal with...

Posted by: CTgirl3 | August 6, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure he would be glad to have fewer issues. It's an amusing assumption that they are optional, though. That must be the true Republican legacy, the notion that serious problems may be safely ignored.

Posted by: nodebris | August 6, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama can multitask.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

It is becoming apparent that the job of Present dent was too much for this minor league amatuer. just how long did anyone think that empty speeches full of overblown, unaffordable promises was going to last? right up until the minute they hit reality.

Riding a gigantic wave of hope and change and a majority in both houses, the Libs did what they always do. Spend like crazy, fight amongst themselves, pay off their cronies, surrender to adversaries overseas and demmonstrate stunning incompetence and corruption.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 6, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

It is too bad there were so many immediate issues that needed to be worked on. Global Warming has waited too long. Same as health care and they are related to the economy. Same about education. Things can't wait. The Republicans would attack him the other way. Not doing enough if he had only one or two initiatives.

Posted by: jvbutcher | August 6, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

O,h for god sake, Chris. Why don't you at least point out the drop in Obama's support is ENTIRELY white males?

And why don't you report this?

"So who is getting blamed for the current economic conditions? The survey indicates that more than four in 10 are pointing fingers at Republicans, with around one in four blaming the Democrats and another one in four saying both parties are equally at fault."

Instead, you only point out whatever you can find that sounds bad for Obama.

Posted by: drindl | August 6, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse


The problem with that question is that no one thinks *everything* he is working on is important. Therefore if he spends time on something other than their pet cause, he's "doing too much."

Ask instead individually which items he should *not* work on, and you won't get a plurality. Except that 25% will say he should work on nothing but reducing taxes.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

It's not like you can work on the economy morning, noon and night. He's doing a ton of things to ensure that the US economy improves.

He also puts in a lot of hours and is very efficient. So it's OK that he's tackling multiple issues. We should all aspire to be -- or continue to be -- that way.

Posted by: MikeK3 | August 6, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company