Barely six months into his presidency, Barack Obama seems to be driving south into that political speed trap known as Carter Country: a sad-sack landscape in which every major initiative meets with not just failure but scorn from political allies and foes alike.
According to a July 13 CBS News poll, the once-unassailable president's approval rating now stands at 57 percent, down 11 points from April. Half of Americans think the recession will last an additional two years or more, 52 percent think Obama is trying to "accomplish too much," and 57 percent think the country is on the "wrong track."
From a lousy cap-and-trade bill awaiting death in the Senate to a health-care reform agenda already weak in the knees to the failure of the stimulus to deliver promised jobs and economic activity, what once looked like a juggernaut is showing all the horsepower of a Chevy Cobalt. Obama must be reviewing the history of recent Democratic administrations for some kind of road map out of his post-100-days ditch.
So far, he seems to be skipping the chapter on Bill Clinton and his generally free-market economic policies, flipping back instead to Jimmy Carter. Like the 39th president, Obama has inherited an awful economy, dizzying budget deficits and a geopolitical situation as promising as Kim Jong Il's health. Like Carter, Obama is smart, moralistic and enamored of alternative energy schemes that were nonstarters back when Carter was installing solar panels at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Like Carter, Obama faces as much effective opposition from his own party's left wing as he does from an ardent but diminished GOP.
And, as with Carter, his specific policies are genuinely unpopular. The auto bailout has been reviled from the get-go, with opposition consistently polling north of 60 percent. Majorities have said no to bank bailouts and to cap-and-trade if it would make electricity significantly more expensive.
According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, more than 80 percent are concerned that health-care reform will increase costs or diminish the quality of care. Even as two House committees passed a reform bill last week, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warned that the proposal "significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs" and dramatically raises the cost "curve."
As writers who called George W. Bush's presidency a "disaster," we're equal-opportunity critics. As taxpayers with children and hence some small, almost certainly unrecoverable stake in this country's future (not to mention that of General Motors, Chrysler and AIG), we write with skin in the game and the fear that our current leader will indeed start busting out the 1970s cardigans.
- Robert J. Samuelson: Rethink the notion that...
- My view: Adjusting the definition of marriage
- In our opinion: Editorial: Underwater...
- Kathleen Parker: In politics, honesty and...
- Would repossessing federal lands help fund...
- In our opinion: Editorial: Millennial...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The pros and...
- Readers' forum: 'Obamacares'
- My view: Adjusting the definition of...
47 - Readers' forum: 'Obamacares'
43 - It's déjà vu all over again...
34 - Letter: Remember, Howell is still in...
28 - Would repossessing federal lands help...
22 - Letter: Citizens must overlook emotions...
19 - Letter: Job creation should be a top...
17 - Hatch's debating 'issue' is manufactured
13







DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments