Republicans working hard to get Obama re-elected

All the hard work by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to sabotage the Obama administration — as well as the American public, American business and the American economy — may be undone by the buffoons running for president.

Amen to that.

For their part, congressional Republicans may be helping out by overplaying their hand. It remains to be seen how boneheaded Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner will be about deficit cutting as the super-committee deadline approaches. Whether they realize it or not, Obama has made a successful end run on the tax issue, and the Republicans can only lose ground with their insistence that there will be no new taxes. A new poll by Politico shows that Americans — we, the voters — support increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations 66% to 31%, with a majority, 52%, strongly supporting increases. That same poll shows that Americans — yes, the people for whom this government is supposed to be working — oppose cuts to Medicare 76% to 19%, again with 52% strongly opposing such cuts. If the congressional Republicans persist with their blinkered ideology, then the Democrats truly will have a chance to win back many of the House seats they lost in 2010 and retain control of the Senate. 

Maybe, maybe not. One can only hope.

Occupy Wall Street ?

Watching them every moment.

Does government do any good?

Over the High-Tech Rainbow
In this piece, Sue Halpern writes: Siri [embedded in Apple’s iPhone 4S] “was incubated at the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), alongsidfe predator drones and driverless combat vehicles, and where the seeds of Apple’s original Macintosh computer were sowed.”

Perhaps government does do some good, no?

Killing Our Citizens Without Trial

In a New York Review of Books article, David Cole writes: Whatever one thinks about the merits of presidents ordering that citizens or noncitizens be killed by remote-controlled missiles, surely there is something fundamentally wrong with a democracy that allows its leader to do so in “secret,” without even demanding that he defend his actions in public.
 
    And he’s quite right. We abdicate our rights, and the obligations of our leaders, so we can debate whether Kim Kadashian should keep the ring, or not.

No brain needed

After explaining that he opposes Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax scheme, Grover Norquist lays it on the line.


Asked about the "intellectual heft" of Cain's plan in light of the candidate's refusal to name the members of his economic team, save Rich Lowrie, an accountant for Wells Fargo in Ohio, Norquist said that the next Republican president "doesn't need to come up with ideas."


"The good news is the next Republican president only needs a forefinger and then pen and the capacity to hold a pen, he doesn't need to come up with ideas," Norquist said. "We have a Republican House, we will have a Republican Senate, they will fix the tax code and send them stuff to sign. He can fly around in a cool big plane and hang around the White House and he can sign the legislation that [House Speaker John] Boehner and [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell send him, and we'll be fine."

Just like Reagan? That's wonderful: President wanted, no brain needed.

Go, Herm, go!

Cain names Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan as possible 2012 vice presidential picks. That'd be a balanced ticket, fair and balanced (get it?).

An offer; who could refuse?

Herman Cain appears to be the latest Tea Party sensation. A new poll from Public Policy Polling has the one-time Godfather's Pizza CEO leading Mitt Romney by eight percentage points, 30 percent to 22 percent. Those are the exact same percentages the very same polling outfit reported yesterday for Cain and Romney in Iowa where the first formal GOP presidential preference caucuses will occur in early January.

Aside from the startling fact that were Mr. Cain to actually get the Republican nomination both candidates for the Presidency of the United States would be black (Cain was quoted in a story I glanced at yesterday that Obama is not part of the African American experience, whatever that means), Barack Obama could nto possibly wish for a better opponent – except, perhaps, Michelle Bachmann, but her star has faded.

Before Cainiacs get too excited, this is still just one poll. And recall that both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann rode the Tea Party wave for a while before it beached them. (Bachmann is now at five percent, the same as Rep. Ron Paul in the national poll.)

Too bad. Bachmann would have made some candidate.

... it's a striking and historic result even if it's transitory. It is the first time an African American who is a declared candidate for the Republican presidential nomination tops a national poll from a reputable public opinion organization. 

Too bad it won't last. 

Savior?

Anti-Islam rhetoric has replaced anti-communism as the right wing's ideological underpinning.

Not all Republicans, however, have embraced the anti-Islam rhetoric that has colored the GOP primary. Last week, for example, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, seen as a leading contender for president in either 2012 or 2016, offered a forceful and widely praised defense of a Muslim judge, Sohail Mohammed, whom he had appointed to a state judicial post.“The folks who criticize my appointment of Sohail Mohammed are ignorant,” Christie said. “They’re criticizing him because he’s a Muslim-American.” Of the anti-Shariah movement, Christie added: “This Shariah law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.”

This is the Republican party's savior for 2012? How many right wingers are going to accept such a point of view? Well, it turns out even Governor Perry has Muslim friends.

as Salon has reported, Perry has also cultivated an intimate friendship with the Aga Khan, the spiritual leader of a sect of Shia Muslims known as the Ismailis. The relationship has produced not only mutual praise but a pair of Islam-friendly programs in Texas, such as an initiative to train high school teachers in Muslim history and culture.

Whoa, there. Has the right wing heard of this?

Unattached, and available

Now that Texan Perry has been deflated (even Republican right-wing pundits are criticizing him), and that Bachman's standing is back to being just a fringe figure, Republicans with billions are seeking out a figure to carry forth their dreams of less government, lower taxes, discredited liberals and defanged unions: a veritable conservative utopia. Their new sweetheart is governor Christie of New Jersey. A tough-talking, abrasive, yet attractive Republican, this governor embodies the latest hopes of those who want a credible challenger to president Obama.

They are rich. They are unattached. They are looking for a little excitement. Meet the Draft Christie committee, a small but influential group of Republican-leaning donors and activists, many based in New York, united by a shared desire to see Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey run for president. There is Kenneth G. Langone, the billionaire Home Depot founder who is perhaps Mr. Christie’s most fervent booster; Paul E. Singer, the publicity-shy hedge fund magnate and Republican activist who is among the most-sought-after Republican donors in the country; and David H. Koch, the industrialist, Tea Party benefactor and, according to Forbes, the richest man in New York. Charles R. Schwab, the personal investment guru, is also among those who have shown interest in seeing a Christie presidential bid, according to published reports and people familiar with the discussions, as is the financier Stanley F. Druckenmiller. So are the hedge fund managers David Tepper and Daniel S. Loeb, a onetime supporter of President Obama. In recent months, Christie enthusiasts have lighted up the phone lines between Manhattan and Trenton trying to persuade the governor to enter the Republican field amid growing concern about the current contenders.

Now, when financiers are willing to put their money where their ideology is, somehow that does not equal when unions do the same; unions are called special interest, are charged with holding the Democratic party hostage to their ideology, and bad for capitalism. When billionaires do it, what is it called?

Whatever they call it, these men simply do not like Mitt Romney. Why that is, I do not particularly care, but I do wonder.


Buzz about Mr. Christie’s presidential prospects intensified in recent days after a previously unknown group, the Committee for Our Children’s Future, unveiled a $1.5 million television advertising campaign in New Jersey promoting Mr. Christie’s accomplishments. “Runaway spending. Record debt. Gridlocked government. Washington is backwards,” the script reads. “But Chris Christie, with bipartisan support, is taking New Jersey in another direction.” The group was formed by Christie friends dating back to his undergraduate days at the University of Delaware. A Republican affiliated with the group, who agreed to speak in detail about its origins in return for anonymity, said it was formed as a way to defend against labor union attacks in New Jersey.

They do it anonymously, hiding behind their millions and pseudo-patriotic names, for they know that if the rabble knew that it is billionaires who owns industries in the Midwest but live in New York who finance the teabags, they might not like it quite so much as they do when it is a committee for our children's future that does it.

“I was at a conference this week with a lot of high-powered people,” said Bradford M. Freeman, who led California fund-raising for George W. Bush. “People just said he was fantastic. Those that know him or have heard him speak are very enthusiastic. He’s articulate, he’s done a good job in New Jersey, he has good charisma.”

High-powered people are not a special interest, of course. And what they like about his record is that he is anti-union.

Many have ties to the Manhattan Institute, an incubator of the brand of urban conservatism — heavy on criticism of public employee unions and runaway state budgets — to which Mr. Christie is the country’s most visible Republican heir.

They hate unions. That is a common theme. Unions are evil. Plutocrats are patriotic. But, perhaps there is another side of the issue to consider as accurate.

'Fiscal conservative’ masks anti-tax agenda, writes Darrell Delamaide.

David and Charles Koch, owners of the privately held energy firm Koch Enterprises, have long since been revealed as the main funders of the “grassroots” Tea Party movement, which cloaks an anti-tax agenda in a small-government Libertarian camouflage. Mitt Romney’s biggest liability as a candidate, aside from the fact that he may be too bland and too fake to defeat Barack Obama, is that he’s not sufficiently on board with this anti-tax agenda. 

Perhaps Romney knows that the anti-tax agenda is a recipe for disaster; Ronald Reagan found it. But these plutocrats and their lackeys want to ignore historical truths.

Pundits have tried to figure out how people who say they want to reduce deficits can claim, against all notions of financial physics, that they can do so by lowering taxes. That’s because they aren’t really interested in reducing the deficit. They are just interested in lowering taxes.

They want someone who will do their bidding, get government out of their way, and maybe even turn the clock back a century.

The Koch brothers could have written the speech Christie gave Tuesday night at the Reagan library in California. Interspersed with barbs about President Barack Obama’s lack of leadership, Christie recited the familiar litany of the anti-taxers — unleash our entrepreneurial energies, favor accomplishment instead of entitlement, remove the “uncertainties” of the tax code, and so on and so on. Beneath all the apple-pie-and-motherhood talk of American exceptionalism and the greatness of Ronald Reagan, the key line of Christie’s speech was the attack on Obama for suggesting that a return to the modest Clinton-era tax rates would be a fair burden-sharing in restoring fiscal balance. 

Bush and Cheney sent soldiers to war without adequate equipment, to accomplish abstract ideological goals and feed billions of dollars to the military-industrial complex, created an economic imbalance that nearly sent the nation into an economic depression, the standard of living of the middle class has stagnated for a decade, more than 40 million people are below the poverty line (itself a laughably inadequate sum), and what these people want is yet more money for themselves.

It would be hard to imagine a better way to mobilize the Democratic base than to nominate Christie and pair him with, say, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as a vice presidential candidate to create the Tea Party dream ticket. Money counts for a lot in our battered democracy, but not yet everything.

Perhaps.

Warren announces candidacy

In fact, on issues of middle-class quality of life, she’s miles ahead of Obama, whose acquaintance with economic principles is, let’s say, minimal and whose grasp of the problems facing the middle class is at best abstract. More to the point, Obama has done virtually nothing to fulfill his promise about reining in the influence of lobbyists in the national capital.

Many promises broken, many disappointments delivered.

For the coming year, at least, Warren has a new platform to preach her message of restoring the middle class, and it’s one this country desperately needs to hear.

Someone has to start making sense. But the same old pap won't cut it.

GOP divided over tea party movement

That not all Republicans support the right wing ideology of the teabags is no surprise, but how many do believe in the ideology is surprising.

"Demographically, the tea party movement seems to hearken back to the 'angry white men' who were credited with the GOP's upset victory in the 1994 midterm elections," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Ideologically, it effectively boils down to the century-old contest between the conservative and moderate wings of the party." Full results (pdf)

That division is more than a century old; even he revolutionary generation had it.

According to the survey, roughly half (49 percent) of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say they support the tea party movement or are active members, with roughly half (51 percent) saying that they have no feelings one way or another about the tea party or that they oppose the movement. 

Almost half, nearly half, of Republicans are leaning right, and that implies hard-line views: the "science" issue is also a strong divider. Nearly six in ten tea party Republicans say that global warming is not a proven fact. Most non-tea party Republicans disagree. Six in ten tea party Republicans say that evolution is wrong. Non-tea party Republicans are split on evolution. Six in ten tea party Republicans say the Department of Education should be abolished, but only one in five of their GOP counterparts holds that same view.

Teabags tend to be white males: The poll indicates that demographically, tea party Republicans are more likely to be male, older, and college educated, with non-tea party Republicans more likely to be younger, less educated, female, and less likely to say they are born-again or evangelical. Both groups are predominantly white.

College graduates want to see the Education Department abolished. They are very angry, and they have targets for their anger.

Tea party Republicans are roughly twice as likely to say that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and roughly half as likely to support gay marriage. Tea party Republicans are also roughly twice as likely to believe that the Social Security system should be replaced, and although most Republicans on either side disagree with the assertion that Social Security is a lie and a failure, tea party GOPers are much more likely to embrace that view.

Doctrinaire ideologues, yet Eight in ten tea party Republicans say that they would prefer a candidate who can beat Obama over one who agrees with them on top issues, so ideological purity may take a back seat to pragmatic politics in 2012 even if the GOP nominee is not a tea party favorite.

 So if a moderate (well, in terms of the Republicans party these days) wins the nomination, the party will unite behind him. That will allow the nominee to tack to the center, appeal to independents, and ... win?

Commentary: Obama’s speech will show government isn’t answer

Darrell Delamaide is an unusual commentator: while he clearly has his own politics, he tries to provide analysis, and not just talking points. Case in point, this column.

The measures being previewed (leaked) — extending payroll tax cuts, business tax credits for hiring, patent reform (huh?) — are just so much small ball, which is all that Obama can play now because of political and budget constraints. He’ll detail the plans in a prime-time speech before Congress on Sept. 7, the White House said Wednesday. So Ronald Reagan and the Republicans are right: Given the current state of play, government is definitely not the solution. Republican obstructionism and Democratic timidity over the past 2 1/2 years have seen to that. 

Not sure what that Reagan reference means, but certainly Republican obstructionism and Democratic timidity over the past 2 ½ years have accomplished nearly nothing.

But here’s the real irony: Private business, without the benefit of significant government help, may step up and give the economy enough lift to get Obama re-elected.

Not exactly without government help: the low level of taxation and the effectiveness of lobbyists in tailoring legislation for the benefit of business are of big help.

Historians can bewail the fact that enlightened policies were available that could have ameliorated the situation. But in a climate where widely accepted scientific theories like evolution and global warming are rejected by willfully ignorant politicians, it’s no surprise that Keynesian management of aggregate demand — one obvious solution to our problems — would also be spurned.

When major political candidates speak of doubting the reality of human causes of global warming to audiences who also do not believe in evolution, mature and effective economic policies are not going to be forthcoming.

So we are left with Adam Smith’s world, with its harsh business cycle and merciless treatment of the working class. Fortunately, some of the shock absorbers, built in by Keynes and other enlightened policy makers before the new Dark Ages of economics descended on us, continue to function and shield us from the worst. 

It is amazing to see middle class voters support ideologues who pander to their fears and ignorance while pushing legislation that enriches the already-rich by taking wealth away from all others – or, perhaps, not so amazing.

Right wing cringes

Michele Bachmann may have won the Iowa Straw Poll, but there's a new frontrunner in town: Rick Perry, who edges out Bachmann and Mitt Romney in a new poll of Republican voters in the state. Perry would take 22 percent of the vote, just ahead of Romney at 19 percent, Bachmann at 18 percent, and Ron Paul at 16 percent. Sarah Palin pulled in 10 percent, only beating the bottom tier of the race, which includes Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. Only 33 percent of Iowa Republicans call themselves Tea Partiers, but Perry dominates among that bloc, taking 32 percent to Romney's 6 percent. In other news, only 35 percent of Iowa Republicans believe in evolution, and 32 percent still believe President Obama was not born in the United States.

Well, that proves that (at least) a third of Iowan right wingers are idiots.

Conservative intellectuals don't have a candidate in the 2012 GOP primary, and they're making their worry more and more public. "To many conservative elites, Rick Perry is a dope, Michele Bachmann is a joke, and Mitt Romney is a fraud," Politico reports, citing a series of Wall Street Journal editorials that wrote Romney out of the race and dismissed Bachmann and Perry as unelectable. The Journal's editors wrote that it was time for "someone still off the field to step up." But the options are short: Rep. Paul Ryan shot down conservative pundits' fantasizing about a run when he said definitively that he would not enter the race. Mitch Daniels, right-wing intellectuals' previous crush, also decided not to run, and Tim Pawlenty, whom they saw as a serious policy thinker, dropped out of the race. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said there were still "leading lights" who aren't in the race, and wore a Ryan-Rubio button on Fox News last week.

Paul Ryan? The one who wants to dismantle Social Security? O, please nominate him!

“I would hope that whoever the Republican candidate is, he or she will not tell us that creationism or intelligent design is the equivalent of evolution — just another theory about the origins of the biological man,” said the syndicated Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who declined to weigh in on specific candidates, though Perry was recently recorded telling a young boy on a rope line that Texas schools teach both theories. “To put intelligent design on that level is like offering grade-school children a choice between astronomy and astrology,” he said.

But that is what these bozos consider important, and they pander to the extreme right wing of the Republican party.

Regaining mantle of campaigner

As he did four years ago when he found his back against the wall in his Democratic primary fight with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama seemed intent on showing that he is the partisan fighter that some of his supporters fear he is not. That is the essence of the Obama problem: he is a campaigner, not a governor. He ran a great campaign, and has run a disappointingly mediocre government. As a result, it is difficult to work up enthusiasm for his reelection.

He signaled that he intends to use the rising influence of the Tea Party movement as a chance to undermine Republicans with independent voters. And he bluntly asked voters to begin considering what he believes the consequences would be if Republicans won the White House.

There is no question that the right wing has hijacked the Republican party, and no doubt that combination bodes ill for liberals, for the not-wealthy, not-corporate, not-extremist, but is that all he can offer?

It is premature to suggest the enthusiasm gap is permanent. Democrats are confident that when the general election battle begins — with Mr. Obama matched against a single opponent — the fervor surrounding the 2008 campaign will return.

To wait until the game starts to bring out one's best effort is a dangerous tactic. Fervor? Not again, no. Resignation.

“Everyone was so hopeful with him, but Washington grabbed him and here we are,” said LuAnn Lavine, a real estate agent from Geneseo, Ill. “I just want him to stay strong and don’t take the guff. We want a president who is a leader, and I want him to be a little bit stronger.”

Agreed. He went in with an agenda for change, and compromised every single time, and looked weak.


With his own approval ratings hovering near their lowest point since he became president, and with a new Gallup poll showing that only 26 percent of Americans approve of his economic policies, Mr. Obama singled out one element of Washington that is viewed in an even more unfavorable light: Congress. “You’re supposed to be in public service to serve the public,” Mr. Obama said. “And that means that, yes, you don’t get your way 100 percent of the time. It means that you compromise.  It means you apply common sense.”

Perhaps they are supposed to, but Republicans do not agree with his rules, they do not apply common sense, they apply political sense. And while he waits for his opponents to play fair, they are working to defeat him, as they have for 31 months.

Tea Party: The Christian Right in Disguise?

Without doubt.

Tea Party candidates like O’Donnell and Bachmann have campaigned on libertarian economic platforms, leading some commentators to dig into old Ayn Rand novels for the source of this new economic populism. But what they’ve missed is that the Tea Party’s obsession with the size of government has been part of Christian conservatives’ platform for decades. The Tea Party was just a new name coined by clever activists and the media—a rebranding that has made it much easier for Christian-right candidates to run for office without having to air their views on social issues, which are increasingly viewed in a negative light by the general public.

Science? Just a theory

Rick Perry calls global warming an unproven, costly theory. The Texas governor says scientists have 'manipulated data' to win research dollars. And maybe the earth is flat, in fact.

Without citing his sources, Perry added that the cost of implementing what he called "anti-carbon programs" is billions of dollars: "I don't think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on what is still a scientific theory that hasn't been proven, and from my perspective is more and more being put into question."

O, it gets better.

One of his questioners was Jim Rubens, a Republican from the village of Etna who works as a consultant for the Union of Concerned Scientists. If both "observed scientific data" and the National Academy of Sciences are wrong on the issue, Rubens asked Perry, "doesn't that call into question the entire science discovery process that is the basis for America's status as an advanced technological society?"

That is, if science is hokum, then what does that make the US?

"You may have a point there," Perry quipped, adding that he believed the issue had become politicized. Without citing any specific examples, the Texas governor charged that "there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects."

So, the Guv'ner politicizes the issue, says it has been politicized (which is bad), and it might all be a bunch of nonsense. First he calls the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank a traitor, then backs off slightly, now he calls global warming (and evolution) unproven theories. These are code words to the right wing fringe: all this liberal crap is nothing more than that: crap, and you can count on this good old boy to throw it out, once he get into office.

But the Guv's battles is not just with lefties; he also has a feud with the Bushes and their Bushies.

GOP's Texas bully

Now that he’s declared his candidacy, odds are Republicans will nominate Texas Gov. Rick Perry for president. They won’t be able to help themselves. If Hollywood put out a casting call for an anti-Obama, Perry would get the role. Democrats have been chortling about running against yet another swaggering Texas governor. Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum explains why Perry can’t win:

"He's too Texan...Even in the Republican Party, not everyone is from the South and not everyone is bowled over by a Texas drawl. Perry is, by a fair amount, more Texan than George W. Bush, and an awful lot of people are still suffering from Bush fatigue."

I think this is wrong. The cowboy archetype runs so deep in American culture that even George W. Bush couldn’t ruin it. Besides, the Connecticut rancher was a trust fund poser who rode bicycles, not horses. Deep down, everybody knew that. Now that he’s no longer president, Republicans no longer have to pretend they believe the brush-cutting charade.

I don't see Perry even winning the nomination. He's too much of too many things. He's too openly religious, he's too openly macho, and he's too right-wing. He is the one early primary voters might prefer, but he is not electable.

Perry’s sectarian religiosity and loose talk about Texas seceding might not play among Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania voters whose ancestors fought to save the union. Calling Social Security an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme would doom most candidates, although it’s the kind of big talk that thrills them down at the Tea Party corral.

Exactly. The tea party might love him, but the rest of the Republican party want to defeat Obama, and Perry can not do it. Except for the fringe, people generally do not look at Social Security as expendable.

Another piece in Salon discusses Perry's electability.

The Clinton '92 story speaks to the preeminent role that the economy plays in presidential races. One of the reasons Clinton was able to rebound so easily from his spring nadir was that voters were unsually restive and eager to throw out the incumbent, George H.W. Bush. Thus, they were inclined to give the challenger the benefit of the doubt, and Clinton was able to earn it. Could Perry, despite his early stumbles, do the same thing under similar conditions in 2012? Sure.

even if concerns about his electability are unfounded, that won't stop Republican Party leaders from worrying -- and, if they feel the need, working hard to prevent him from winning their nomination. That's what we've started to see this week, with influential, opinion-shaping voices on the right weighing in to express concerns about Perry's campaign trail antics -- and to call for new candidates to enter the race. Clearly, the "elites" of the Republican Party, who play a vital role in crafting the talking points that shape mass GOP opinion, are fearful that Perry might be a general election liability. And if he keeps behaving as he has these past few days, their concerns will only grow -- as will the number of GOP elites willing to express them publicly.

Just how influential are/will Perry's big-money backers?

Promises, promises

Bachmann: If elected, gas prices would fall to less than $2 per gallon Perhaps she can also get the tooth fairy to up her rewards for lost teeth.

McConnell’s message to Obama: Stop pushing your failed economic policies Those would be the ones that Republicans made sure failed, surely.

Perry: Scientists are manipulating data to prove climate change And they would not get to do so in Texas, coz the Guvner would kick their asses.

Intransigence

Hardly a voice of moderation (pun intended), Senator Kyl strikes an uncommon chord: conservatives have to remember they are not in charge.


Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) warned that conservative Republicans shouldn't expect to get exactly what they want on a compromise in a deficit-reduction and debt-ceiling-increase package. "My Tea Party friends I’m sure appreciate this, but we have to keep reminding ourselves, we don’t control the government. Conservatives are not in charge," Kyl said Friday on Fox News. "And therefore we are not going to get exactly what we want; we have to craft something that leads us in the right direction." Kyl said the question for Republicans is what kind of bill they can entice Democrats to agree to.

Or get the President to cave in to, as they have in other matters.

26% approval rating

A new low of 26% of Americans approve of President Barack Obama's handling of the economy, down 11 percentage points since Gallup last measured it in mid-May and well below his previous low of 35% in November 2010.

 His solution? Go on the road, attack Congress as ineffective, and promise a major something in September. I don't think they quite get it, his political team: attacking Congress is more of the same tried and failed strategy of not taking responsibility, but simply casting blame.

President Obama's approval rating has dwindled in recent weeks to the point that it is barely hugging the 40% line. Three months earlier, it approached or exceeded 50%. History will remember this period for the messy political debate in Washington over the debt ceiling, followed by distress on Wall Street and tragedy in Afghanistan. How much each of these factors is responsible for the overall decline in Obama's approval rating is unclear. But Americans' unhappiness with each of them is reflected in recent declines in Obama's specific job ratings for the economy, the federal budget deficit, and various foreign policy measures, as well as in his markedly low rating for creating jobs.

Of course, as Rick Perry and his Texas swagger jump to the lead in the early Republican line, and push the Republican party decidedly to the right, the president benefits. it might work, to rely on the Republican Party losing the election and his winning reelection, but it won't do a damned thing to help the nation improve.