Saturday, December 24, 2011

Hope Springs Eternal!


I know all this takes time and I also know one has to wait in order to snare all the “goodies” coming from the White House.
Sure, limiting the list to the nine worst mistakes of the Obama administration in a year that saw so many of them was a tough proposition. But in the spirit of Christmas, I decided to be merciful and not pile on. Plus, you know, you probably have company coming over.
So for now, nine will have to do.
Why nine?
Quoting Bluto from Animal House, “Why the hell not.”   
I’ve included links and snippets from various columns addressing each topic:

9) Sending a budget to Capitol Hill that didn’t get one vote:
Calculate the man-hours that went into presenting to Congress a budget that didn’t muster even one vote in the Senate. If that didn’t cry out that Obama is a one-term president, certainly the rest of the year’s events did. The question that I have for the political geniuses at the White House is: “After getting elected primarily on the strength of the financial crisis, how could you be so ignorant of fiscal issues?” Nothing better represents the disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country as Obama’s attitude towards passing a budget. They didn’t even pretend to take the process seriously. And then they thought no one would notice. 
See: Obama Goes Doh!
Mr. Irrelevant, the man formerly known as president, was in France when news came that the Senate unanimously rejected the Jerry Lewis gag budget that the administration submitted to Congress in February.
The vote was 0-97 against, with three Senators voting “not present.”
Can you blame them?
 If John Kerry’s misshapen theme was “Reporting for Duty,” Obama’s is: “I’m AWOL: Ha. Ha. Ha. You can’t catch me.”
If Kerry’s presidency was still-born, Obama’s died of crib-death.    
Can you imagine any other president in history being satisfied with sending up a budget that couldn’t muster even one vote from his own party?

8) Predicting the economic recovery:
Presidents are notoriously bad financiers and economists. They take a big chance getting caught with their pants down when bragging about accomplishments in an economy that has been as tentative as this one has been. That’s especially true when they aren’t following any coordinated economic program, but rather making it more difficult for businesses to create jobs. Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, MACT and the Keystone Pipeline show an administration that will pick narrow, special interests every time over real results. Given the strutting and puff Obama does, it’s hard not to blame him when things go wrong.
As economists predict that the Japanese earthquake and tsunami will contract the third largest economy’s GDP by between zero percent and 3 percent, Obama has responded by filling out his bracket for the NCAA tournament.
And golfing.  
If Reagan was the Great Communicator, Obama is the Great Fabricator. For Obama, every day is just another episode of the Beltway Unreality show, where acting is much more important than actually doing something; where pop-culture trumps substance. 
Time’s senior correspondent Michael Crowley complains, “[A]t a moment when it feels that the world is reaching a full boil, it's hard for the president not to speak.”
Crowley’s got it half right.
It’s hard for Obama not to speak irrelevantly.

7) Spiking the “football” on Osama bin Laden:
Obama has made too many references to “getting” Osama bin Laden. He’s done it in such a way that he claims too much credit. The proper thing to have done was to give the US Intelligence Community along with our armed forces all of the credit. Since 2001, there has been a small group of people fighting a war while the rest of us remained safe at home. As one reader who served in the military put it, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have gone to war, while the rest of the country has gone to the mall. The intelligence gathering that eventually “got” bin Laden started a long time before Obama was president.  Obama’s never learned the hard lesson, often lost on the “special” child, that no one likes a braggart.
Obama interrupted his “Osama bin Laden is still dead” cross-country tour yesterday to give another major policy speech bereft of new ideas. But first the president let us know that “Osama bin Laden is still dead.”
Four times.
As Jimmy Carter manipulated the teleprompter in the background, Obama put on his best professorial airs and spit out his trademarked clipped delivery in a room full of State department staffers and diplomats who applauded tepidly when the “applause light” went on.
He talked about what he called self-determination in the Middle East.
If you covered your ears hard enough you could barely tell that the speech was largely a plagiarism of Carter’s 2009 book, “We can have peace in the Holy Land: a plan that will work,” updated for recent developments.  

6) Solyndra:
The economic futility of the regime in Washington was best displayed by the decision to “invest” US taxpayers’ hard-earned money in Solyndra, even knowing that the company would fail. This at a time when Obama was lecturing the half who actually pays taxes that we are not paying our fair share. Even after getting caught, then lying and getting caught in the lie about the decisions surrounding the DOE program that made the Solyndra investment possible, Obama doubled down on stupid to put billions, yes, billions more into the program. I suspect that after all the dust has settled and the market has crushed many of the rest of these companies, that somehow, somewhere, you’ll find GE picking up the left-over pieces of the “green” energy industry at bargain prices.
It doesn't help the administration that the decision to make the loans in the first place has crony capitalism written all over it.
Big time Obama donors and bundlers have a financial interest in Solyndra. 
In May, the left-wing leaning Center for Public Integrity blasted Obama for putting the welfare of donors above that of taxpayers by killing important safeguards in the process of making the loans.
"The Energy Department in March 2009 announced its intention to award Solyndra Inc. a $535 million loan guarantee before receiving final copies of outside reviews typically used to vet such deals," wrote CPI. "An independent federal auditor who has reviewed the energy loan program said moving so quickly without completing thorough reviews exposed the program to perceptions of political influence and put taxpayers at greater risk.”      

5) Fast and Furious:
Admittedly I’m no fan of Eric Holder’s. But even I’m amazed at the breathtaking cynicism shown by our top law-enforcement officer as he lied to Congress about what he knew and when he knew it regarding Fast and Furious. It shouldn’t have taken the death of a federal agent to know arming drug gangs in Mexico would lead to no good. But that just shows the depths to which progressives will go to dupe people into supporting policies that progressives know are “for the best.”
Republicans have alleged, if not from the first, then at least for a long time, that operation Fast and Furious was a callous attempt by progressives in the plutocracy that we now call America at creating an artificial gun crisis so that the plutocracy could abridge citizens' 2nd Amendment rights.
I mean further than they’ve already abridged them.
Now even liberals are getting the memo- or at least email evidence- that it’s true.
CBS News has reported that new documents show that officials in the ATF discussed using the fallout from Fast and Furious as means of introducing “controversial new rules about gun sales” even as they forced gun dealers to let illegal transactions occur.

4) Vacations 1, 2 & 3
I don’t begrudge the president taking his family someplace, you know, once.  But $4 million dollars for a Christmas vacation? And despite what some progressives are claiming, yes that amount is the tab picked up by the US taxpayers for Obama’s 17-day Hawaiian vacation with Mary Todd Lincoln Jr. And the money part isn’t the worst of it. This year Obama was notably absent during the start up to the war in Libya and during the aftermath of the debt ceiling negotiations- remember the ones he really didn’t take part in in the first place? He promptly decamped to Martha’s Vineyard while S&P downgraded US debt.  
The last time the market was this spooked was when Mr. Obama decided to start a war with Libya.
While on vacation.
At that time, the presidential family headed to Brazil where the HuffPo Entertainment section told us that the “First Family watched local performers during their tour of the Cidade de Deus Favela in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday. Sasha went sporty with sneakers, while the first lady showed her support of the country sartorially, in an outfit comprised of yellow, green and blue--the colors of the Brazilian flag. They later changed into pants to tour the Christ the Redeemer Statue at night.”
This vacation happened while the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was in full force, because Japan had been rocked by the tsunami of the century. Obama also chose the vacation to start serving up cruise missiles in Libya, a war he made his very own and that he still hasn’t won.
Libya for crying out loud. That’s like invading Wisconsin.
Here was the moment when the next Great Recession began.
We saw in that crisis the epitome of a failed presidency: the listless leadership, the lack of direction, the lack of pretension in being presidential (or even pretending to be), disregard for the consequences of policy.  And the certainty that vacations would always come first.   

3) Keystone Pipeline
The Keystone Pipeline demonstrates the dilemma that all Democrat presidents face. It’s one thing to get elected; it’s another to govern while keeping your whack-job coalition together. Lyndon Johnson couldn’t do it, Carter couldn’t, Clinton could, but Obama is having a hard time of it. That’s why he punted on making a decision on the Keystone Pipeline. He’d either have to defy the saucer people who pass as progressives these days or the American people who want jobs. In the end, he’s only succeeded in making everyone mad.  
Another guy with nice hair and a good tan is working on the Obama job plan. He’ll be a great addition at Martha’s Vineyard.
This ought to work out as well as Geithner doing his own taxes.  
This week, Obama announced his new econ czar would be Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist who figured out that if you gave billions away to the auto industry in price incentives, auto sales would go up.
OK. Sales only went up temporarily.  But he’s the only member of the Obama administration who possesses an understanding of the relationship between price and sales. Maybe that’s progress for an administration that seems to sabotage every economic plan they come up with.
However, count me as skeptical.
Krueger likes taxes.
He likes them a lot.
He likes taxes on the rich, the poor, carpools, employers, employees.
Did I say he likes taxes? He really, really does.

2) Libya
Nothing cried hypocrisy more than Obama’s decision to start a time-limited, scope-limited kinetic military activity- whatever that is- in Libya over European oil. Up to that point, progressives supported him. After that? Not so much. Obama’s decision on Libya made it much easier to say that both the GOP and the Democrats criticize when out of power and hypocrisize when in power. The GOP needs to avoid that trap this time around.
I don’t know that Obama will be a one-term president.
But the glamour days are done for him. His scholarship has about run out. 
          
On that, even people on the left are starting to agree.
We can no longer afford to treat the presidency as if it were a reality show starring Barack Obama as the chief contestant.
In order to turn the country around, we have to elevate the presidency above the level of American Idol, and turn it back into the American ideal.
It’s apparent every time the “president” makes a “big” speech, that he’s not up to the moment, that Obama can’t do the job the presidency demands.
He’s a man of limitations. For all his seeming worldliness, his experiences have limited the scope of his vision, instead of broadening it.  
He has become the kinetic president, famous for only the sound his movement creates.
Sure, there was a short romance, when some in the country were in love with the speeches and yearned for Camelot. But speeches aren’t a destination. More often than not, the sound of his voice has been a distraction; or too often an outright distortion.  
Eventually, even Barack Obama’s life has to get judged on results.      

1) Debt Ceiling:
It’s hard to pin this completely on the president. But really you have to because here’s the un-get-aroundable fact. In February, Obama presented a budget that called for more deficit spending, more borrowing, more debt. In July he was pretending to be concerned about the deficit. He wasn’t and isn’t. That was just a bid to raise taxes. Super, epic, utter fail, dude. Thanks for playing.
Obama’s into big stuff, says chief of staff Bill Daley on ABC’s This Week.
"I do firmly believe that one of the wet blankets on this economy and on companies, on the system right now is a question as to whether or not our political system, whether the leaders can get together, whether they can solve big problems," Daley said.
So let’s define the “big, wet blanket problem” in which Obama and his Chicago friends now find themselves:
They are addicted to big taxes, big spending and big government, and none of it- NONE. OF. IT. - has a darn thing to do with what’s best for the public and the economy.
All of it- ALL. OF. IT. - has to do with funneling money into Democrat Party coffers.
And it's sitting like a wet blanket over our economy. And Daley's right. Democrat leaders can't solve it. They couldn't solve it when they ran the tax scam in Chicago and they can't solve it now.
The results are showing in our two parallel economies: One for the Democrat Party and one for the rest of us. In order to keep the Democrat Party’s economy humming along, they are going to need a new injection of taxes, because the public won’t write them a blank check again. 

I had dinner a few weeks ago with two liberals.  I asked them if they agreed that most of our drive-by media were of the left-leaning variety.  This they agreed to and then I asked them why that media was forcing themselves to look so hard at the Conservative wanna be’s but had done nothing four years ago to look at Obama.  Their answer was amazing.  They claimed, quite accurately, that the media did nothing because they didn’t know anything about the man in question. Then when I asked them why they had voted for such an unknown man, they said they “hoped”.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Worst not First!



Let’s just stick to skills. Let’s not talk about how bad his policies are.
Because I can’t think of a person who is less suited and less interested in being president of the United States than Barack Obama is. 
I’m reminded of this as I see Europe drift from debt to crisis to dissolution.
“Events in Greece over the past 24 hours have underscored the importance of implementing the plan, fully and as quickly as possible,” said the US president according to Euronews.
I didn’t understand that there was a real plan for the Greek debt crisis.  If there is one, certainly Obama has nothing to do with it.   
People like to pretend at times that who our president is doesn’t matter. They say presidents get either too much blame or too much credit. Can’t say much about the credit part, but it’s not possible to blame Obama enough for the poor state of the United States and the lack of leadership and confidence the United States engenders around the world today.
In our economy, our relations with other powers, our reputation around the globe, we’ve become a laughingstock under Obama. “Hope and Change” has become a hackneyed punch line of lost chances, hopes destroyed and dreams knowingly betrayed by golf vacations.
Obama has offered us nothing but our blood, our toil, our tears and our sweat; and for what?
So public employees can continue to bust public budgets on Cadillac benefits that you and I can’t afford. All this while he pushes austerity down the throats of a sovereign Greece.
I’m tired of Obama’s “leading from behind.” That’s not leading, that’s pushing
Don’t think for one minute that Obama would accept for his union friends the type of cuts he says he favors for Greece.    
We’ve gone from each according to his means to each according to his union. We’ve gone from a post-partisan, post-racial America, to all partisan, all the time.    
The president of the United States once, not long ago, stood up to Communism when they tried to take over South Korea- in this, he was sustained by the whole world. Today we’re left with the president being lectured to by Chinese Communists regarding reckless spending; and after being lectured to by Chinese Communists, in return, all Obama can offer to Europe is lectures about their own profligate ways.    
It’s inconceivable that a Reagan or a Kennedy would let things drift with a world in crisis. A Reagan or a Kennedy would have acted, if only in a moral sense. Both George Bushes had enough sense for that.    
"I am confident that Europe has the capacity to meet this challenge. I know it isn't easy, but what is absolutely critical, and what the world looks for in moments such as this, is action," said Obama after a G20 meeting on Europe’s debt crisis, according to the Wall Street Journal.
But don’t look for action from Obama. If he could attack Greece with a covert drone missile strike, he’d probably do so in order to avoid having to exercise real leadership.
He’s been the "drone" president on fiscal issues here in the US too, having dinner with his family and getting a haircut while his aides bickered about bailouts.        
There was a day when the US could help exercise some leadership on the European stage. But if Obama’s interested in the European debt issue, then that’s news to me, German chancellor Angela Merkel, French president Sarkozy, members of the G20, fans of All My Children or anyone with electricity.
Obama has become the absentee landlord of the world, not presiding over the budget; abstaining from the debt ceiling; absent from Europe during the debt crisis; issuing a bull against a tsunami as he enjoyed his own National Lampoon’s Brazilian Vacation.
If I were Greek, I’d be worried about the missile strike.            

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Ten Years Hence!


No matter what the record shows, there will always be those who have no trouble ignoring facts as obvious as the noses on their faces.
Monday was the 10th anniversary of the horror we call simply by the numerals that mark its point in time. Anyone who watched the minute-by-minute film record of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center buildings broadcast by cable networks such as Fox, MSNBC and CNN -- and had any doubts about what happened and who made it happen -- has a serious gap in their ability to process information clearly presented.
They exist, however, laughably calling themselves "truthers" despite their obvious inability to recognize the truth even when it stares them straight in their clouded eyes. How they can look at the films showing such horrors as the suicidal leaps of our fellow human beings trapped in the flames and still convince themselves that the whole thing was a hoax thrust on us by the Bush administration and the federal government is simply an astounding reaction to the plain truth faithfully recorded by plain citizens with cameras.
Those who fail to understand that this was an act of war committed by terrorists fail to understand that there are those who hate us, and hate our way of life, and are willing to go to any lengths to inflict serious harm on this nation and do it for all the world to see.
The idea that recognizing that a state of war exists between the people of the United States and those who would inflict a worldwide Islamic dictatorship on the people of the United States seems to have escaped the notice of the self-described "truthers."
Prominent among them is an academic, ultra-leftist and somewhat disoriented New York Times columnist, one Professor Paul Krugman, who viewed the ceremonies surrounding the recognition of 9/11 as mere hucksterism. In a column called "repugnant" by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Krugman pilloried as shameful those who want to commemorate this great American tragedy.
I'll tell you what is really shameful -- it's the vision of this leftist academic dancing on the graves of the victims of 9/11 from the safety of his office. Civilians, firefighters and other first responders willingly went into the jaws of certain death in an attempt to rescue their fellow New Yorkers trapped in the two doomed towers. We all know of their heroism and stand in awe of their willingness to serve in those dark hours. Demeaning those who celebrate the heroism of those who risked their lives -- or died trying to rescue their fellow human beings -- is simply beneath contempt.
I'm certain that the souls of these heroes of 9/11 willingly forgive the likes of Professor Krugman from their refuge in paradise. Down here in the trenches of the war against terrorism, forgiveness doesn't come all that easy. We are entreated to pray for our enemies. So mutter a prayer for Professor Krugman. Although he probably doubts the power of prayer, he needs all the prayer he can get.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

They Tax the Poor!


Another guy with nice hair and a good tan is working on the Obama job plan. He’ll be a great addition at Martha’s Vineyard.
This ought to work out as well as Geithner doing his own taxes.  
This week, Obama announced his new econ czar would be Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist who figured out that if you gave billions away to the auto industry in price incentives, auto sales would go up.
OK. Sales only went up temporarily.  But he’s the only member of the Obama administration who possesses an understanding of the relationship between price and sales. Maybe that’s progress for an administration that seems to sabotage every economic plan they come up with.
However, count me as skeptical.
Krueger likes taxes.
He likes them a lot.
He likes taxes on the rich, the poor, carpools, employers, employees.
Did I say he likes taxes? He really, really does.
He proposed a national sales tax- he calls it a consumption tax- that would be a hardship on the poorest Americans and be a direct drag on the economy, as even he admits.
“The main downside of this proposal,” he said of his sales tax scheme, “is that taxes reduce economic activity. But the government must make critical trade-offs, and a consumption tax could be the most efficient means to raise revenue to finance essential government functions.”
Taxes reduce economic activity?
A startling admission from an Obama administration official, especially one who is an economics professor. I never thought they’d figure that part out.
But then Krueger goes on to strain credibility by claiming we have “essential government functions.” I didn’t know we had a government that functioned at all, yet alone essentially.
They don’t work off a budget; they don’t pass bills that accomplish what they propose to do; they fight more wars even as they condemn the cost of war; they shut down energy production even as they decry our increased dependence on foreign oil; they kill jobs in industries they don’t favor, like oil even while they complain that rich people aren’t doing their fair share to help create jobs.
“That’s our money,” the government’s ketchup-stained court jester, Michael Moore told us. 
How about we just stop killing jobs? No?
“The Administration believes that it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels,” says Krueger, “instead we must take dramatic steps towards becoming a clean energy economy.”
Forget finding new oil. Can we just use the oil we have?
We are sitting on 4.3 trillion barrels of oil in the western US, enough to keep us going for 600 years without importing another drop. This is oil that would keep $400 billion in our economy every year and reduce our trade imbalance by 2/3rds. And the economics professor says no?
Did he use TurboTax to deduce this?  
They strained might and main to raise taxes on the rich most of this year- which conservatives opposed- yet now, by appointing Krueger as the new czar of the Obama whackosystem, they seem to be signaling that they will be willing to compromise by agreeing to raise taxes on everyone, rich and poor alike.
“Another downside is that a consumption tax,” Krueger says as an aside, “is a greater burden for the poor, who spend a relatively high share of their income.”
But the government really needs the money so that they can help the poor, says Obama.
The poor being taxed to help the poor. Finally the Obama administration has come full circle.
Now you know what happens when socialists run out of other people’s money:
They tax the poor!  

Monday, August 29, 2011

No Tuts or Pharoahs



Remember when every Joe Schmo out there was giddy as a schoolgirl telling us that Egyptian “freedom fighters” were getting rid of that old meanie Mubarak and were headed for a “democracy” in the land of Pharaoh? I sure do.
I particularly remember the reporters selling us that smack during the outset of the Arab Spring: “Revolutionaries,” they called the Egyptian dissidents—veritable “mutineers from Mubarak’s mayhem, sick of servitude and longing for liberty, just like Paul Revere!” They flung that noise, or something to that effect, at us with goggle-eyed glee each day for weeks on end.
Personally, I never bought this “freedom fighter” bull shiitake we were all being sold, and I said so from day one of this uprising on my amazing show, ClassRadio.com. Indeed, this “democratic” thang reeked of nutty radicals to me, and I believed it had zilch to do with “Egyptian young folk just wanting to live la Vida Loca.”
That said, however, I must confess that I did question myself as to whether or not I was being too harsh on the newscasters’ spiel and the motivations of the “freedom fighters.” Perhaps I had become too much of a jaded skeptic when it came to the jacked-up scat in Cairo.
That personal inventory regarding the wrongness of my perturbation with the “democratic revolt” lasted about two days. I believe I second-guessed my naughty heart right up until two hundred “democracy seekers” gang raped CBS’s foreign correspondent Lara Logan. I thought that was a strange thing for lovers of democracy to do.
Oh, another thing that made me think that maybe I was dialed into what was truly going down was the Muslim Brotherhood started popping up all over the place, gaining control over the “secular” Egyptian military.
And one more thing that ended my brutal introspection was that after Mubarak got deposed, the “new democracy” reestablished with Iran and Hamas and officially told Israel to blank off.
It was at that point in time that I ceased my second-guessing and formally realized that I am a genius. Radicals hijacked Egypt, and the Egyptians who truly long for freedom—at least as defined by sane standards—are now more SOL than they were under Hosni’s boot.
And lastly, this past week the “freedom folks” in Egypt have put forth their liberty legislation that includes bans on bikinis, mixed bathing on beaches, and drinking beer in public—and they’re even yapping about getting rid of the Sphinx, the pyramids, and other ancient Egyptian archaeological wonders.
Call me weird, but that doesn’t sound like liberty to me.

Bad, bad, bad ..................



Since we determined that Obama doesn’t deserve to be a President now, we know also that he doesn’t deserve a second time around in November 2012
So, since people have asked I will answer with five reasons based on substance, although I could probably come up with twenty reasons easily.
But for now, five will do.  
Each reason will come in two parts. The first part will be substantive arguments as to why Obama is a bad president because of a failed or flawed policy. The second part will put that argument into context with a campaign promise.

Reason Number One: Obamacare
Part One:
Obamacare legislation is flawed. Badly flawed, it doesn’t address the real need to bring down costs in the healthcare.
There were two reasons to reform healthcare in this country. The first purpose was to bring down runaway costs; the second was to expand coverage. At this point, it’s fair to say that even if fully implemented, no one knows what the exact outcome of Obamacare will be as to costs, although it’s safe to say coverage will expand.
Then-House Speaker Pelosi was right when she said that no one would really know what was in Obamacare until it was enacted. If that’s not an indictment of the legislation crafted by the president, I don’t know what is. I think at a minimum legislation ought to have known outcome, especially something as ambitious as Obamacare.
Instead of the “less than trillion dollars” figure that was trumpeted when Obamacare finally passed, the CBO says that the figure for the first ten years will come in north of $2 trillion. The increase will have to come from tax increases and benefit cuts.  
This isn’t a “narrative” or message problem. This is continued unease by the American public that was relatively happy with their healthcare choices and costs. And they were forced to take a replacement that isn’t going to work.         
And more and more evidence is cropping up that suggests that Americans’ fears that they would not be able to keep their current insurance under Obamcare was a legitimate concern. Because of the mandate provision, businesses are starting to make the simple decision to get rid of coverage, which is what critics said would happen.  
Poll after poll shows that 70 percent or more of Americans were already happy with their health coverage. And candidate Obama promised to make sure that Americans could keep their insurance if they were happy with it.
It was a key difference between the candidates Obama and Clinton during the primary.
“But the big difference is mandates,” wrote Paul Krugman in the NYTimes in February 2008, “the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.”
“If Mr. Obama gets to the White House,” continued Krugman, “and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.”     
Because of the mandates that candidate Obama said he didn’t favor- and that is the key provision of Obamacare- the legislation is the largest expansion of federal government power since the Great Society, maybe ever. It imposes draconian measures on people who refuse to buy something from the federal government.
This is something that candidate Obama said he wouldn’t do.  
Bad president, bad, bad president.
Part Two:
“Under my plan to reform healthcare,” says candidate Obama under this hypothetical, “we’ll imprison anyone who doesn’t buy health insurance. And to enforce the requirement we will put 16,500 more IRS agents on the street.”

Reason Number Two: Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq
Part One:
Say what you like about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Bush did secure Congressional approval for the military actions there. Obama didn’t even bother to consult Congress before fighting a de facto war in Libya.
You can try sophistry to argue why Obama took the measures he did, but it’s only that, sophistry. Any other president would come under the same scrutiny, especially when they argued previously that to fight a war without Congressional approval would be unconstitutional.
Bad president, bad, bad president.
Part Two:
“As president of the United States,” says candidate Obama in the hypothetical, “I will deploy our forces in and around Libya. I will authorize the use of force in Libya for a period not less than six months without first- or ever- securing the approval of Congress because you can’t make me.”

Reason Number Three: If You Can’t Budget You Can’t Govern
Part One:  
Despite having big majorities for the first two years of his presidency, Obama has failed to get any budget passed. Ever. His last budget didn’t even get one vote in the Senate. Not one.
Obama’s Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt said in 2006 “If you can’t budget, you can’t govern.”
That might be the reason why we have historic budget deficits without much to show for it. The reason why the public got so involved in the debt ceiling debate is directly tied to the indiscipline shown by the White House when it comes to budgets. 
There is give and take in any budget process that’s key to building support in any organization. Too often it’s Obama’s way or the highway. And the country ends up drifting.    
John Spratt was defeated for reelection in 2010 after first being elected to Congress in 1983. That was Obama’s bad.
Bad president, bad, bad president.
Part Two:
Under my plan for economic growth and recovery,” says our hypothetical candidate Obama, “we won’t even pass budgets. We’ll run up historic deficits and raise the debt ceiling, something that I condemned my opponents for. But we’ll do it without any systematic support or budget process.”


Reason Number Four: Regulatory Overhang
Part One:
We’ll leave aside the great uncertainty that Obamacare is creating amongst businesses and concentrate on two other industries that are vital to economic recovery: Banks and Energy.
Like it or not, banks and energy are vital parts of the economy. If you want to understand why the economy is struggling to create jobs, you only have to look at what’s happening in those sectors to get why Obama’s policies have failed.
Banking: The president has used the full faith and credit of the United States to essentially guarantee the banking industry and below that real estate, which is the cornerstone of banking. Despite the guarantee and despite huge amounts of cash, banks aren’t loaning money. Part of that is demand driven, but part of it is the uncertainty surrounding Dodd-Frank banking reform.
It was clear from the mortgage crisis that banking needs better regulation. But it was also clear that part of the problem in banking was that the federal government became a partner in crime, so to speak, along with taxpayers and home buyers. Everyone was happy that the price of homes and real estate was going up. And the government created the framework for that to happen by originating about half the mortgages in the country.
The sub-prime mortgage market that was created was inconceivable without the government providing the inflationary oomph that only government liquidity can really stoke.
Dodd-Frank was supposed to fix that. But it hasn’t tried to address the systemic problems of too-big-to-fail in any real way.  In fact, the administration has pandered to public outrage by demonizing bankers while keeping the banking system intact, warts and all.
We now have fewer banks in fact with larger pools of concentrated assets.
What could Obama do differently? He could break up the banks. He could bring back Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall was specifically designed to prevent the too-big-to-fail scenario by allowing banks to operate only in contiguous states and by forcing them out of the investment business. And it worked, until European mega-banks, not encumbered by Glass-Steagall, forced US banks to lobby for repeal saying this time things were different.
The way to address too-big-to-fail is not through Dodd-Frank, which doesn’t really touch the subject, but to make sure any one bank isn’t so big to force the rest of the system to fail. Dodd-Frank regulates every part of the banking business except for the part that keeps it from failing.  
Included in that reform should be the break up and private sale of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government should be out of the mortgage business entirely with the exception of VA loans.
You can only get rid of too-big-to-fail by addressing the too-big part first.
Bad president, bad, bad president.
Energy: The president- and the left- has a huge ideological blind-spot when it comes to energy. The result of his policies in energy have been to make energy more expensive, to kill jobs in the US in energy and subsidiary industries at a time the country can’t afford it.
But really, there is no time the country can afford the rainbows and unicorns plan the left is following. Despite decades of research and promise, the magic bullet of renewable, plentiful, without-cost energy isn’t attainable. Ever.
After a much ballyhooed speech on energy policy that was supposed to lay out a new vision for energy in America, the New York Times was forced to issue the following correction:
The president can’t have it both ways.
He can’t claim that his sole focus is on jobs while he’s shuttering the power plants and oil rigs, sources that account for most of the energy we produce while he has no viable alternative of his own. America has the resources to be importing less foreign energy while creating real jobs.  
The president should stop getting in the way of developing those resources.    
Bad president, bad, bad president.
Part Two:  
"We won’t pursue natural gas, oil, coal or any other fossil fuel development under my administration. Instead we’ll focus solely on developing ‘alternative’ energies like solar and wind power by giving select companies loans, grants and cash subsidies. It hasn’t worked before but this time is different. We’ll make the alternative energy business so big that it will be too big to fail.”

Reason Number Five: The Selective Presidency
Obama is president when he wants to be, and AWOL when things are hard.
Here’s an example.
On the debt debate he was unengaged until the last minute. Then he compounded his error by scolding members of Congress like they were lazy- all while he planned vacations.
I don’t begrudge a guy a vacation, but to pretend that when Congress goes into recess they are slacking off is playing politics with it. The president doesn’t come across as the offended innocent then when he packs off to Martha’s Vineyard as the stock market tanks because of dissatisfaction with the cuts in the debt deal.
Where was Obama on the debt deal in February when he was presenting a budget that called for much bigger deficit spending?
Again: Obama wants it both ways. He wants to call for more spending in February, but in July he’s a deficit fighter. Which is it? People expect the president to have some core principles that he sticks to, that they can rely on. If he truly thinks that another $2 trillion in spending can get us out of the hole on unemployment, then he should argue for it.
Part Two:
“If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition.”- actual statement of Obama from an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer on Feb. 1, 2009.
Make a case for it, be presidential.     
Instead, Obama lectures and preens and blames everyone else. It’s S&P’s fault, or Congress’, or George Bush’s, or the rich’s, or it’s the greedy bankers, or oil companies, or insurance companies.
He’s one of the most eloquent presidents that we’ve had during an age when eloquence can reach everywhere. Yet few people now believe anything he says.

What does that say?
Bad, bad president.