President Obama: Political Wrecking Ball


By now it’s settled on most people, including Democrats, that the loss of Alex Sink to David Jolly in Florida’s 13th Congressional District was, in the words of the New York Times, “devastating” to Democrats. It’s a district Ms. Sink carried in her unsuccessful race for governor against Rick Scott, a district that Barack Obama carried in his two elections, and a district that demographically now favors Democrats. In addition, Ms. Sink raised more money and ran a better campaign than Jolly. Even Bill Clinton lent his efforts to her campaign. And yet she lost.

What should particularly alarm Democrats is that Ms. Sink, who was not in Congress in 2010 and therefore did not cast a vote in favor of the Affordable Care Act, ran what Democrats considered a “textbook” campaign when it came to dealing with ObamaCare. She said she wanted to fix it, not repeal it; and she attempted to paint Jolly as a right-wing extremist on abortion, Social Security privatization, and in wanting to repeal ObamaCare. And yet she lost.

Even someone as reflexively partisan as Paul Begala said Democrats shouldn’t try to spin this loss.

But there’s another, broader point worth making, I think. It is that Barack Obama, who was the embodiment of liberal hopes and dreams, is turning out to be a one-man political wrecking ball when it comes to his party–and to liberalism more broadly.

The evidence is scattered all around us, from the epic defeat Democrats suffered in the 2010 midterm, to the (likely) lashing that awaits them in 2014, to collapsing trust and confidence in the federal government, to an agenda that is unpopular virtually across the board. Add to that the rising disorder and chaos in the world that is the predictable result of Mr. Obama’s disengaged and impotent foreign policy.

The American people, having lived with the Obama presidency for more than five years, have come to the conclusion–later, I think, than they should have–that he is incompetent, weak, and untrustworthy. And that judgment is directed not just at Mr. Obama; it is implicating his entire party.

Barack Obama produced a health-care proposal that was a liberal dream for a half-century. It is a bitter irony for him, and a predictable result for many of us, that having achieved it, it may well set back the cause of liberalism for years to come.

Liberals wanted Mr. Obama. Now they have him. And now they may be undone by him.

Source: Peter Wehner


  1. “…judgment is directed not just at Mr. Obama; it is implicating his entire party.”, and that is as it should be especially on the subject of the ACA; Democrats wanted and owned it and only fitting they crumple under its weight.

  2. The Liberals are standing knee deep in Obamacrap, and still swear that they don’t smell a thing.

  3. If the pattern of history is followed, the GOP will be the victors, but it is seven months before most people will decide who they will vote for, or even if they will vote. There is a lot of time for things to change, or even an “October surprise.” Nobody should be counting chickens just yet. Some of the eggs haven’t been laid yet. We do have primaries, and the crazy TP may do some real damage there.

    • Yes we know you do not like the Tea Party, so kindly point out which of these you think is “crazy” and I’ll even save you the clicky to;

      1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes

      2. Eliminate the National Debt

      3. Eliminate Deficit Spending

      4. Protect Free Markets

      5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States

      6. Promote Civic Responsibility

      7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government

      8. Believe in the People

      9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics

      10. Maintain Local Independence

      None of those sound crazy.

      • That’s right, they don’t sound crazy until you look at the specifics of what they want to do to accomplish their ends. It isn’t what you SAY, it’s what you DO. The most of these things sound reasonable enough, although the “maintain local independence”, “avoid the pitfalls of politics” don’t really MEAN anything, they sound nice enough. It’s just that the TP’s definitions of these goals and how they want to go about inflicting their beliefs on everyone and call it “abiding by the Constitution” is where you folks start really going off the rails.
        I don’t like this comparison, but it is one that most people will understand. The Nazi agenda sounded innocuous enough if you didn’t look at the methods they employed.

        • So what is it about “what they do” that causes you to think they are comparable to the Nazi agenda or is in some way unconstitutional? If you hate the comparison so much then even why make it. I know its to “indirectly” affiliate them with such monstrosities without actually doing it.

          The pitfalls of politics doesn’t mean anything? Really? So you think it is perfectly fine for lobbyists and special interests to have an undue influence on the our representatives (Item 9). That sounds to have a lot more meaning than you dismiss or willing to admit. It sounds quite reasonable especially when most people here at the CCO has said so in one way or another.

          Or how about Item 10 (local independence). You disagree with the local people of Evansville from setting their *own* agenda instead of others setting it for them? Sounds like to me they are referring to the individualism set forth in the Constitution. But then that would have a tendency to negative some of the Republican and Democrats political power, and I would be fine with that.

          It sounds like to me *you* are the one trying to inflict your beliefs on everyone by denying the Constitution. Much of their stance is based on the Declaration of Independence (that tax aspect) and the Constitution. It is the law of the land even though I sense you could really care less about that. On the whole your disdain for them sounds nothing more than having drank to much Kool-Aid and just regurgitating the Democrat, progressive, liberal, communistic and to some extent Republican propaganda.

      • These all sound good, but this boat sail 35-40 years ago.

        #4, in my interpretation is what your calling globalization of the market, correct?

        First, this is the root of most of the top ten’s failings. Reflect on the “trade deficit”. Back 35-40 years ago, our trade deficit was mostly tied to import oil. When as a senior at Central back in “77”, that number was around $300 billion for the national debt. Just gone forever. The federal government can not tax what has left it’s borders. That $300 billion could had been circulating within its borders since then being tax multi times. To make up for that lost revenue would had been higher taxes (#1). They also would had to borrow money and print money(#2&3). Interest on that money is forever unless we have a surplus to pay it down.

        Since that established base from above, apply all that trade deficit since , compounding interest on trade deficit yearly. It could get you close on #2 alone.

        #4 also wrecked the manufacture base. This killed multi millions of jobs (6&8). Jobs lost forever. Not creating wealth in manufacture jobs cost the federal government with taxes on the company & its workers. Federal programs to assist people not working because of the free market is not with out a price (#1,2,3,6,7,8). This also created the corporation welfare that is about 93 billion dollars a year. (topic numbers from earlier in the week).

        With turmoil on jobs and budget, politicians are out side the box trying to catch a golden egg, pushing for ideals that has a price to turn things around. #1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,&10.

        #4 is the evil devil !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • I think Item 4 is referring to businesses within our borders. Don’t forget all the treaties our government signed onto in those 30-40 years.

          • I feel this still applies if it was to be for state side only. This effects the Us economy. It also effects the competition on services and products trying to made here.

            I feel the TP ers left out this intentionally, if they did not mean globalization.

            Treaties not forgotten.

        • Most of the trade deficit has still been due to energy imports..this should change if fracking continues and we will have a surplus again..lower energy costs reduce the inelastic demand impact of demand on discretionary spending..this leads to more consumer discretionary spending or savings which can be invested into increased productivity..either way you have an increase in employment and hopefully less need for any subsidy

          • Armstrong

            Happy to oblige your request!

            Petroleum as a % of Trade Deficit (Source: US Census Bureau)

            “Month” “Petroleum” “Non-Petroleum”
            “Jan 2006” “34.8” “65.2”
            “Dec 2006” “34.9” “65.1”
            “Dec 2007” “54.7” “45.3”
            “Dec 2008” “43.3” “56.7”
            “Dec 2009” “56.5” “43.5”
            “Dec 2010” “58.1” “41.9”
            “Dec 2011” “53.7” “46.3”
            “Dec 2012” “49.8” “50.2”
            “Dec 2013” “39.8” “60.2”
            “Jan 2014” “49.3” “50.7”


            Another site ( shows this same US Census data in a more linear display, on a month to month basis, is the following Web Site. Long story short, the closer the red line is to the blue the less of an impact petroleum products have on the trade deficit. Since Jan. 2003 the gap between the blue and red line has been growing due to the impact of petroleum. From 2007 until 2012, the impact of Petroleum was the primary driver of the trade deficit. The Petroleum percentage declined as a result of fracking and a strengthening dollar.


            Finally, just a couple of quick quotes. I could go on but why bother.

            May 2013, Matt Hills, Manhattan Institute

            “America is now the world’s fastest-growing oil-and-gas-producing region and has the capability to become a net energy—and even a net oil—exporter. Meanwhile, China has become the world’s largest importer of oil. Imports are, in fact, rising across the Asia-Pacific region. This new energy reality is fundamentally reversing the trade and economic positions of China and the United States.

            Today, oil imports account for about 40 percent of America’s $750 billion annual trade deficit, a deficit that drains the GDP and kills jobs. Expanding the domestic production of hydrocarbons to reduce imports as well as increase exports will function as an enormous subsidy-free stimulus to the U.S. economy, directly creating all manner of jobs across the nation and indirectly creating millions more jobs as the nation’s current account deficit shrinks.”

            New York Times, March 7 2014

            “The United States’ trade deficit widened slightly in January as a rise in imports of oil and other foreign goods offset a solid increase in exports… BMO Capital Markets, said the January trade report suggested the trade deficit would remain on a gradual downward trend this year, reflecting a shrinking United States energy deficit. A domestic energy boom has increased exports and reduced America’s dependence on foreign oil. Petroleum exports rose to a nominal high of $137.2 billion last year, up 11 percent from 2012. Imports were down 10.9 percent to $369.4 billion as domestic production took the place of the need for some imports.”

            “In 2013, U.S. exports amounted to $2.27 trillion and imports amounted to $2.74 trillion. Trade deficit was $450.3 billion.[US Census, BEA] The deficit on petroleum products was $232 billion.[US Census, BEA]”

            Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 9-3-2013

            “Almost entirely on the back of stronger exports, last week the U.S. Commerce Department revised upward its economic growth estimate for the second quarter, from 1.7 to 2.5 percent. Exports from April to June grew at their fastest pace in two years, pushing down the U.S. trade deficit to 2.7 percent of gross domestic product. That’s less than half what it was at its peak of around 6 percent of GDP in late 2005.

            Most of the boost in exports came from tangible stuff sold abroad: goods, rather than services. The biggest among them were petroleum products refined from all the crude oil the U.S. is producing—unlocked by fracking. Through June, the U.S. has exported an average of 99 million barrels of petroleum each month over the past year. That’s roughly quadruple the amount the U.S. was exporting a decade ago.

            The story of the shrinking U.S. trade deficit is essentially the story of the U.S. oil boom. The last time the U.S. came close to balancing out the trade deficit, at least in terms of its share of GDP, was just after a recession ended in 1991. To feed the broad expansion that followed, U.S. oil imports grew by more than 130 percent over the next 15 years, from 192 million barrels a month in early 1991 to a peak of about 455 million barrels a month in the summer of 2006.”

            The economist just had a very through explanation of the impact of the oil boom in the US as well. You can just say so and so had a trade surplus and that is our problem. We don’t really need shoes or underwear that is produced in China and if we had to produce these and other like items we could; oil was until fracking a whole other story!!

          • @cdad

            Seen where your information came from. I research for awhile knowing what you presented did not come together to your original post about oil and trade deficit.

            Answer came from your own post.

            Agree that total imports for 2013 was $2.74 trillion?

            Agree that for the same period, $369.4 billion of foreign oil was imported?

            Oil represented less then 14% of our imports.

            We imported from China alone $440.4 billion
            We imported from Japan $138.5 billion
            We imported from Germany $114.6 billion
            We had no import of crude oil from these three countries. “US Census bureau”

            The chart you reference from compared import of oil to the total trade deficit. (apples and oranges)

            That’s like saying China is 98% of the trade deficit. (apples/oranges)

            Back in the 80’s, 6 billion was the yearly deficit with China.

          • Armstrong

            Please see first chart from the US Census Bureau BEA..since the end of Sept 2007 the trend has been that petroleum, as a percent of the trade deficit, was over 50% except for a few periods and at Jan 2014 was almost 50% of the trade deficit.

            The sum of the trade deficit of oil (black line) is added to the sum of the trade deficit related to goods and service (red line) to arrive at the blue line which is the total trade deficit.

            My statement that most of the trade deficit has been due to energy is true if since late 2007, the balance driven by petroleum, as shown in my first chart, trends over 50% for roughly the past 7 years, which it has.

            You bringing up one or two counties from which we could, if we had to replace their imports, is totally different from importing one cares about shoes or underwear from China.

            The current improvement in the trade deficit, which I allued to, is driven by the reduction in oil imports, as the quotes support. When I mentioned that the deficit should change, this is already occurring, as the dollar trade deficit is going down due to importing less oil and exporting more. US petroleum exports hit an all time high in Nov 2013 per a Reuters 1/7/2014 article by Lucia Mutikani.

            As the US grows to be an energy exporter, the deficit will be reducued and a surplus should result. Our surplus will come from increased energy exports, an energy price competitive advantage leading to increased exports, and rising labor rates in Asian countires particularly China.

            What the deficit is with China today for shoes and underwear is not what I care about, it is where the deficit is going to be, which is what my original post alluded to. Improvement in our trade balance is being and will be driven by energy tracking.

            Finally for the last seven years, the trade deficit has been driven by petroleum, again as my first chart from the US Census BEA clearly shows.

          • cdad

            Even though I had acknowledge your one chart that you feel is gospel truth, I pull multi facts from that same source and you blew it off, sticking to oil (reasons not known) and not caring about other commerce which we once produced.

            You never acknowledge that our total import was $2.74 trillion, while our oil import was only $369.4 billion, only 14% of total import.

            Cherry picking one type of import, while many types of imports create the other 86% of the trade deficit appears agenda driven with blinders on.

          • That first chart is from the US Census BEA and clearly shows that the bulk of the deficit for the last 7 years is from oil..oil which you have to have and inelastic in demand for the most
            part..that is the truth.

            You eliminate the energy trade deficit, the overall trade defict is reduced, and a surplus driven by energy exports and competitive advantage is created.

            China’s deficit for goods and services must be netted with all goods and service imported and exported into the US to see where an economy has its weakest link, which was petroleum. We could always offset China’s goods and services deficit with exports of other goods and services. Not so much with petroleum prior to fracking.

  4. No, I don’t think lobbyists running government is okay, but since the Koch brothers own the TP, they must not have much problem with it. I assume you are making reference to “taxation without representation”, but we are represented by those we elect. Whether you believe that you, personally, are being represented is probably a sujective view based on whether or not your candidate won. In reality, the majortiy of voters are being represented. “The law of the land” apparently is not important to the average TPer, as they certainly attempt to circumvent the 1st, 9th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the Constitution, while insisting that the 2nd be interpreted as if there were no advances in weaponry since it was written.
    We can argue on about this forever, as neither of us truly has any respect for the other’s viewpoint, but I believe I made it clear that I drew the Nazi analogy because it is one that nearly anyone will understand. It makes more sense than getting “killed at the next zebra crossing” and is no more tasteless.

    • I do respect your opinion but pointing out their opinion is wrong headed does not mean any less respect. You just don’t like some one saying so. And yes your Nazi reference was and is quite clear, you think they are Nazis having made the correlation even if it is one “nearly everyone will understand”.

      How and what ways do you think they are attempting to circumvent the Amendments you listed?

      Your hypocrisy is showing, who do you think is funding Democrats or do I need to point you to the recent list showing Democrats out-funding Republicans with special interest groups like Unions and businesses.

      The *law* as you say certainly has not been high on Obama’s list of things to do, not when he directs the Immigration Department to ignore requests from States like Arizona. A President *does not* have the option of selective law enforcement under the Constitution. So if your trying to say the Tea Party is about lawlessness, we are already there thanks to your political party.

      You still don’t get the zebra crossing? Keep at it and you will.

    • You dems need to get over that Koch Brothers dog whistle. They are way down in the weeds when it comes to political contributions. Any party that gets as much UNION money as the dems do have no basis to squawk about being owned by special interests.

      • This issue was a topic 4-6 weeks ago.

        What you mention above held true to “elect” the candidates to their offices. Once there, the big money lobbyist, chamber of commerce, corporate america grabs them by the ***** and dictates the direction “they” want them to go.

        After dark I will try to find that source on this.

          • Nice weather out, had to do many outside chores before it got dark for my elderly father that he can not do for himself anymore.

            Nice night to be a vampire. No wooden stakes for me!

        • CCO 2-14-14, “100 largest political donors”
          Read the replies, see mind towards the end.

          source: look up largest lobby groups.

  5. Too bad Democrats don’t care as much about the money of the average tax payer they’re screwing as they do the Koch’s.

  6. Obama is a classic case of someone with a personality disorder that responds to criticism aggressively. I would imagine his current state of mental fitness is questionable. Let’s hope he doesn’t act out and do something stupid militarily. I think our military is currently in shambles.

    • Oddly enough, you and I have agreed on more than we have disagreed on.

      Check back on here tomorrow and we’ll go over your above post because I’d like to ask you about something stupid militarily like Iraq. Or are you talking about bombing Iran. Something Romney or McCain already would have done.

      Mental fitness: Must be in the eye of the beholder.

      See you tomorrow pov.

      • By the way, the reason I can’t hash this out with you right now is because I’m getting ready to start scratching my nuts and snoring and I’m not in an advantageous position at that time.

        Tomorrow pov


Comments are closed.