The Real Reason for Obama's Unpopularity

Every honeymoon ends

When a president suffers a sharp decline in popularity early in his term, it seems safe to conclude he has badly misjudged the mood of the electorate, pushed the wrong policies, and set himself on the path to becoming a one-term president.

That, it's widely agreed, is the sad tale of Barack Obama, who has managed to demoralize liberals while inspiring a wave of gloating among conservatives. A new CNN/Opinion Research poll finds that already, most Americans want to vote him out in 2012.

But both Democrats and Republicans are jumping the gun. They forget that this storyline also describes Ronald Reagan, who saw his approval rating sink over his first 12 months—yet rebounded to carry 49 states in his 1984 re-election bid. Bill Clinton was significantly less popular than Obama for most of his initial year, and we all know how that turned out.

George W. Bush likewise managed to hack off a lot of onetime supporters soon after taking office, and when his popularity soared eight months into his term, it was not because of anything he did but because of the 9/11 attacks. He, too, won re-election.

American politicians and commentators are generally not afflicted by a deep knowledge or appreciation of history. If they were, they would not waste their time laboring to explain something that requires little explanation. They could simply state the obvious—new presidents invariably lose public esteem in the first year of their terms—and go on to try to explicate something truly mysterious, like Lady Gaga.

That's the implication of research by Douglas Rivers, a professor of political science at Stanford University, scholar at the Hoover Institution, and professional pollster. Though Obama rated the lowest of recent presidents at the end of his first year, Rivers says the pattern "is pretty much in line with what you would expect." What we see is "more a continuing trend than an Obama phenomenon."

That's not to say Obama has made no mistakes. You can't occupy the White House without disappointing a lot of people. Every president bungles some things, and every president pays a price.

His fiscal policy and health care plan, in particular, have energized the opposition and spawned public resentment. On the other hand, his grades on gay rights and immigration have actually improved—possibly because he has done less than expected on either issue. There is no real evidence to suggest that the public finds Obama far more fallible or detestable than they usually find presidents at this stage.

On health care reform, it's not clear what he could have done differently to appease a notoriously demanding citizenry. Surveys indicate people think that if his plan passes, they will get "worse care at a higher cost," says Rivers. What do they expect if his plan doesn't pass? "They'll get worse care at a higher cost."

I wish I could say Americans' suspicion of health care reform shows a sensible appreciation of the limits of government power and responsibility. But I suspect the real problem is they fear it will not guarantee them everything they want at someone else's expense. Rivers notes that when you ask people about specific components of the plan, they turn out to be "fairly popular."

If Americans distrust the government, they also take a dim view of the private sector, or parts of it. "Anything negative for insurance companies is popular," says Rivers. Most people blame insurers for rising health care expenditures, even though insurance companies are one of the few constituencies with a powerful interest in reducing outlays.

This is not really quite the contradiction it may appear. People don't mind when national health care costs rise. They do mind when their personal health care costs rise. When that happens, they blame health insurers. They may also blame the president, even if costs were rising before he arrived and threaten to keep rising long after he leaves.

It's a mistake to think every political trend has deep meaning. Most of the disillusionment with Obama is the result of a natural process that tells nothing about the future. Every honeymoon ends, but the end of the honeymoon is not a harbinger of divorce.

The good news for Obama is that he has lost ground with the electorate mainly because of things he can't control. The bad news for Obama is that making it up will require the help of things he also can't control.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Not Suki, thank Cthulhu||

    Top o' the morning to ya, Reason.

  • anarch||

    Unpopular != always wrong.

  • Untermensch||

    Correct, or Libertarians would always be wrong, since we're certainly not popular compared to the free ponies and ice cream that our selfless gumvit masters servants keep promising us in exchange for votes.

  • ||

    I am sick of the unoriginal and willfully ignorant libertarian / republikan meme, repeated ad-nauseum in nearly every post on this site, that social programs are "buying votes". I seem to recall getting checks in the goddamn mail, fer chrissakes, from the last president, just in time for elections; my alleged tax "rebate". And don't argue that "it's your money". It's your grandkids money. It doesn't exist. Borrow and spend or tax and spend? Your choice. Neither, right? I'll go it alone! Douchebags. My son is a Libertarian. He's 8.

  • Starry-Eyed Supporter||

    Thank God he's the first black one-term president!

    Wait, that didn't come out right ...

  • ||

    You are so racist.

  • Confederacy Jim||

    It ain't racism if they ain't people!

  • ||

    wylie
    stop being a whiner and wake up!
    Your Pres. is antiwhite so how do you deal with that? Put your head in your toilet?
    Grow up jerk join the real world!

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    The things he could not control?

    He didn't want himself associated with cap-n-trade or health care. He knew those were going to be unpopular, that he didn't want those items blemishing his "historic Presidency", so he turned them over to Congress. Told Reid and Pelosi to make them happen for him, to take the political hit, for him.

    Unfortunately, this opened a door. Limbaugh et al wouldn't let him lay the blame for these things on the writers, Congress, and that threw his lemmings into a frenzy.

    Others, like me, don't want a President that gives all of the difficult assignments to others in a politically calculated move of political insurance/blame dodging. HE called for the bills during his campaign, he should've been front and center in trying to get them designed and passed, not passing them off to Congress then trying to blame Congress when they failed.

    The whole "I support the public option, but you guys in Congress put it together and I'mma just fly around the world making the exact same speech about it over and over and over again" bit isn't what I think of when I envision a leader.

    Granted, I don't like the cap-n-trade or health care reform bills, but hey, lots of people didn't like Reagan's fiscal policy (he still stood beside it and Volker), a lot of people didn't like Clinton's NAFTA (he still stood beside it). It was Obama's decision not to really be involved which told me that he didn't really believe in these plans.

    If he didn't believe in them enough to get his hands truly dirty with them, why should I?

  • Untermensch||

    Because he is the Chosen One (PBUH), got it? He doesn’t need to do those things, as those are for his True Believers to accomplish in His name.

    More seriously (but only a little), my really progressive friends are more than a little bit like Evangelicals about this: if the left wing just has enough faith these things would happen and the fact that they haven't isn't because those things are bad (any more than Jesus' second coming is for Fundies) but because they just didn’t believe hard enough.

    There is now a petition going around among die-hard lefties to demand that the public option be passed by adopting the Senate bill and shoe-horning it in via reconciliation. It's theater of course, for some legislators to prove their progressive cred to their base knowing full well that it won't actually happen. When I point that out to my friends they aren't too happy, because they still maintain the magical thinking necessary to believe it will happen somehow because the cause is just and their motives pure, yada yada.

  • ||

    He didn't want himself associated with cap-n-trade or health care.

    He thought he could take credit if they passed, and avoid blame if they didn't. Sucks when you can't get a "heads I win tails you lose" deal, doesn't it.

    He supported them; as innumerable speeches (and more importantly, his actions) demonstrate. No reason he shouldn't take a beat-down in spite of his transparent attempt to avoid being held accountable.

  • ||

    "No Mr Bond. I expect you... to die."

  • ||

    You can't occupy the White House without disappointing a lot of people.

    Main Entry: dis•ap•point
    Function: verb
    Etymology: Middle English disapointen to dispossess, from Middle French desapointer, from des- dis- + appointer to arrange — more at appoint
    Date: 15th century

    transitive verb : to fail to meet the expectation or hope of : frustrate

    In no way whatsoever has President Obama failed to meet my expectations.

  • wingnutx||

    He failed to meet mine, thank the gods.

    I expected him to be more successful in ramming through all manner of horrible legislation.

  • I reported this site fr racism||

    This whole site is rife with it.
    I reported it as such.
    Seriously guys, it's 2010. You all should be ashame.

  • Curious||

    To whom did you report it?

  • ||

    flag@whitehouse.gov! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • Janeane Garofalo||

    This is racism, straight up!

  • ||

    Wht? Tht's npssbl!

  • ||

    Da ambalamps. Bring dem.

  • Warty||

    SON I AM DISAPPOINT

  • ||

    But of course, piggy. The Left has re-defined "racism" to mean "opposition to Obama".

  • Keith Olbermann||

    No, it's because he's black. And every single Tea Partier is double racist.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    KO
    Just ax them!

  • ||

    ever so gently remove your head from your ass, your losing precious oxygen.
    You must mean Maxine Waters and the other pathetic Dems dear.
    They want people hanging from tree's and want to help send American people to Hell. READ son, educate yourself so you will know who said what.

  • Xeones||

    I am ashame, fr racism. I am so very, very ashame.

  • ||

    Likewise, my ashame
    Grows like the winter snowfall
    Humble, I submit

  • Horde4Lyfe||

    That was six syllables in the first line. Nice try though grasshopper.

  • ||

    And the url makes just as little sense...2698 da ambalamps bring dem?

  • ||

    Is Chapman on the Obama payroll? This is the dumbest article Reason has put up, well since the last Chapman article.

    First, Chapman takes the usual Cosmotarian view that all Americans are lazy welfare queens who object every enlightened solution because it doesn't give them enough goodies. Bullshit. No one but the moonbat left and the pundit class wanted comprehensive health care reform. Obama came during the biggest economic collapse since the 1930s. The banking collapse turned the election for him. The people expected him to spend his time and political capital doing something about the economy. Instead Obama spent most of his first year trying to sell health care reform on the ridiculous premise that that was the solution to the recession.

    The one thing he did try to do for the economy, the stimulus, was horribly designed and did nothing for the economy while cost $850 Billion. Instead of a real stimulus Obama came up with an $850 billion payoff to Democratic interests. And when sure enough it did no one but Democratic state employee cronies any good, he spent the entire summer blowing smoke up people's ass about how he saved jobs even though the unemployment rate went over 10% despite his predictions that the stimulus would keep it at eight.

    Obama spends his time either lying and blaming Bush for everything and manages to come across completely out of touch with the concerns of Americans. He never has managed to connect in any emotional way with the country or show that his policies are about anything but his own self aggrandizement (notice how it is always an "historic moment" and such) and fulfilling liberal wet dreams on health care. In short, people don't think Obama cares or understand them and don't see how any of his policies will do anything to help the situation. That is not a recipe for success.

    And finally for Chapman to claim that Obama no less popular than any other President is just ludicrous. Imagine if the Republicans had lost a Senate seat in Texas a year after Bush took office. The Democrats have been killed in every election in the last year and in places like New Jersey and Massachusetts where they should always win. A majority of the people say they would not vote to re-elect Obama. This was supposed to be a "historic realignment". Obama had a bigger majority than Clinton ever dreamed of. Obama has blown more political capital in one year than any politician in my lifetime. Who the hell is Chapman kidding besides himself?

  • ved relvet||

    John and mo are spot on...it seems that since Chapman had gotten the 2010 Creators.com at the bottom of his articles he has taken a soft view of the far leftist President...Obama was given more unearned benefits of the doubt than any Prez in recent memory...people (because of an inner affirmative action) were willing to give him a shot in spite of his thin resume...his policies were what awakened the masses and his and Congresses tone deafness is what prompted them into action. Chapman, perhaps to appeal to a wider audience or to gain acceptance in some austere circle has become bland wishy milk toast. Me thinks he has an application in at the NY Times...

  • anarch||

    ashame isn't define[d] yet, but these are close

  • Mo||

    You're wrong Steve. The president isn't popular because he hasn't implemented [insert policy I agree with] and has tried to implement [insert policy I disagree with].

    /almost every political commentator

    The are 9.7 reasons why Obama is unpopular and it's not the size of the government. You can't identify two more polar opposites for beliefs in the role of government in my lifetime between Obama and Reagan. However, both came in during a crappy economy and both were really popular because they were "change" candidates. Both had their popularity drop like a rock because they lacked sufficient fairy dust to fix the economy. It wasn't that small government was unpopular and big government is also unpopular. It's the fact that not having a job is unpopular.

    This is why Clinton got reelected and Bush I didn't. Clinton's reelection campaign was during an economic recovery and Bush's was during a trough in the economy.

  • ||

    Reagan's popularity dipped with the economy. But, his policies were focused on the economy and in the long run did something to help. In contrast, two of Obama's top three priorities (Cap and Theft and Obamacare) not only are not focused on the economy, but also are viewed as negative towards the economy. That is a sure ticket to unpopularity.

  • ||

    "That is a sure ticket to unpopularity."

    I'm sure Obama will pull a Clinton before the next election. You won't be able to recognize him.

  • hurr durr||

    He'll stick a cigar in a fat woman's vagina?

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    No, her ass.

  • ||

    And also, the Clinton economy wasn't that great in 1996. It was in recovery but unemployment was still up over 6%. Part of what helped Clinton was that unlike Obama he could connect with people. Obama's coolness that makes people like Chapman scream like little girls at a Jonas Brothers concert is, for the rest of the country, turning into uncaring detachment. That is also a recipe for unpopularity.

  • Rhywun||

    It really is a popularity contest, isn't it.

  • ||

    Pretty much. If the country likes a President they will forgive a lot. The country really never cared much about Iran Contra or Monica Lewinski because they liked Reagan and Clinton. If they don't or the President comes off as distant (Bush I) or sanctimonious and thin skinned (Carter and now I think Obama) they are much less forgiving.

  • Mo||

    It's not the absolute level of the economy, but the direction it's going. It's the answer to "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" question. If unemployment is at 6-7% in 2012, Obama will be fine because the economy will be going in the right direction. Not that it's right or fair, but that's how these things work.

    "In contrast, two of Obama's top three priorities (Cap and Theft and Obamacare) not only are not focused on the economy, but also are viewed as negative towards the economy. That is a sure ticket to unpopularity."

    Uh, isn't that because the 3rd priority is the economy? Besides, I've barely heard any focus on Cap and Trade, it's basically been health care, jobs and Afghanistan.

    Reagan's popularity didn't dip, it cratered to 35% in January of 82. No one thought he was going to get reelected, let alone mop the floor with Mondale. It's easy to look back, revise history and say that Reagan was popular because he was an ubermensch and fixed the economy, but at the halfway point, he was headed to Carter Junction.

  • ||

    It hit the 30s in January of 83 not 82. And it turned around that quickly. But, the difference is that Reagan's policies really did work. And the recession of 1982 was the short term price to be paid to end the 1970s stagflation.

    No question, that if Obama's economic policies work, he will be much popular. The problem is that his policies are not going to work and unlike FDR, it is doubtful Obama will be able to get away with it.

  • Mo||

    You're right, it was 83, not 82. I mistyped.

    Well, that's the point. If the economy turns around, Obama's golden. If it doesn't, he's not. It has nothing to do with the policies. Carter put Volcker in and had him kill inflation, but Reagan benefitted from it.

    Keep in mind, unemployment was still over 7% by the time of the 84 election. However, most of Reagan's economic reforms, except for ERTA, came in his second term, not the first term. Not to mention, if you hate deficits, Reagan increased them by an unprecedented amount from less than a trillion to over three trillion during his presidency.

  • ||

    The biggest thing Reagan did was index the tax brackets. Before Reagen the tax brackets were not indexed to inflation. So people, thanks to inflation, were always ending up in a higher bracket even though their real wages never went up. Reagan also drastically cut the marginal tax rates. And he just stopped enforcing a lot of regulations. Those things had as much to do with the recovery as anything Volker did. Volker ended inflation. And that was a big deal. But without Reagan's tax cuts and for lose enforcement, the boom would have never happened. We just would have had lousy growth with low inflation.

  • Thorbie||

    To paraphrase Dan Mitchell of the Cato institute, deficits are bad, but they're merely the symptom of the real problem, which is out of control spending. Sure Reagan did run big deficits, but he also cut taxes which stimulated the economy and generated about as much tax revenue as the higher taxed did. Would any of us prefer a huge cut in spending too? Sure, but tax cuts for about equal revenue is much better than higher taxes for more inefficient results. Also Reagan had to contend with a Democratic congress, so he probably couldn't have reduced spending any more than he did. What we have right now is gigantic deficits that would even leave Dubya in awe AND record spending unseen since FDR.

    I agree with John. Obama's simply not going to see a recovery under his policies. They simply won't work. I think the silver lining of it all is that a new generation will see convincingly that Keynesian economics simply doesn't work.

  • Mike.S||

    A lesson which has to be relearned about every two decades, after Keynesianism has failed catastrophically, yet again.

  • LifeStrategies||

    You say, "I think the silver lining of it all is that a new generation will see convincingly that Keynesian economics simply doesn't work."

    But when you give somebody free handouts, they think Obama's policies do work. And they blame the way it makes them feel on not being given enough rather than on their own lack of self respect. There really is no free lunch...

  • ||

    The economy will improve despite the 'stimulus' and Obama (and any other Democrats still in office at that time) will take credit for it.

  • ||

    Part of what helped Clinton was that he got to run against Bob Dole. I doubt the Republicans will be as generous this time around, but I could be wrong on that -- certainly they've seized defeat from the jaws of victory often enough in the past.

  • ||

    It was Ol' Bob Dole's turn back then, just like it was the cranky senior citizen John McCain's turn last time around. What's the point of serving decades in the Senate if the party's not going to give you a shot at the big time? As it happens, it doesn't seem like there are any barnacle-encrusted Republican elders advancing with seniority claims this time around.

  • JoshInHB||

    Chapman,

    Its time to come out of the closet.

    Stop being such a pussy and admit that you're a liberar democrat.

    Embrace your inner progressive.

  • ||

    This guy is reason-less. Reagan is not the comparison. Reagan never had the House but was able to attract Southern Democrats to get things done. Obama, like Clinton, had Democrat majorities in both houses, plus Obama had a Senate super-majority. The people, not the Republicans, stopped Obama. The only thing he ever understood to begin with was left-wing ideology and political organizing and campaigning. It's hard to see how he can repair that, given more and more voters are onto him. And he can't blame Republicans, because voters are enraged about incumbents and the corrupt culture in Washington.

  • Draco||

    My mind still occasionally boggles at the notion that millions of Americans actually thought Obama was qualified to be President. It's really an indication of how we've degenerated in 200 years that an Obama could even be nominated as a major party candidate.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    But, but he's black...

  • ||

    People have short memories.

  • ||

    Oh, please. Obama is incompetent. Can circumstances outside of his control help him? Sure. But he's been too obvious in his lack of aptitude to take credit for much of anything.

    Don't forget, too, that if the GOP takes control of Congress, or even just the House, and the economy improves, they can bandy about the correlation between the economic downturn and the Democrats taking control of Congress. The reverse for any upswing. A little smoke and mirrors, but it might be a fatal blow in 2012.

  • ||

    That is the crucial difference between 2010 and 1994. The 1990s recovery started in 1992. The economy wasn't great but it wasn't that bad in 1994. People were pissed off at Clinton and the Congress over Hillarycare, gay in the military and corruption. They really were not pissed about the economy and didn't really associate Democratic leadership with bad economic times. That allowed Clinton to take all the credit for the economy in 1996. If the economy turns around in 2011, Obama will have a much harder time taking full credit for it because the Republicans will be able to argue that it was terrible until they took the Congress.

  • K-Y||

    Not getting the congress.

  • ||

    Wanna bet?

  • ||

    And gun control.

  • Mike M.||

    Oh, please. Obama is incompetent.

    Incompetent, and furthermore he's not nearly as intelligent as what the country was led to believe in 2008.

    After seeing him in action for a year, I fully understand why his college records are all safeguarded like classified information.

  • Told Ya||

    See! See! This site is rife with racism!

  • ||

    I would maintain it's racist to suggest that Obama's demonstration of lack of intelligence cannot be challenged like any other president (or have you forgotten Bush already?) The biggest example of racism in the past election was white Democrats in the primary and the black support for Obama.

  • slutmonkey||

    Blacks supporting big O while whites maintained a normal ideological split is just more proof that blacks are more racist than whites. The fact is that most white not living in the south don't even think about race anymore--it's a non-issue. Blacks are the only people talking about it.

    @Mike: While I agree that people often judge intelligence based on college GPA, they're completely wrong in doing it. Many if not most people with genius level intelligence get lousy grades in college. TBH it's the people with moderately high intelligence (IQ in the 110-120 range) but an extreme work ethic that get the highest grades. Really smart people are usually lazy because for their whole life nothing has challenged them to work hard.

  • ||

    Standardized tests correlate fairly well with IQ. He's never released his SAT or LSAt scores.

  • ||

    "Incompetent, and furthermore he's not nearly as intelligent as what the country was led to believe in 2008."

    George Bush II and John Kerry had better grades from Harvard. (Prove me wrong!)

  • Evil Red Scandi||

    Mr Chapman:

    Just because Reason supports the legalization of drugs doesn't mean you should write your columns while completely baked. I don't think that even the New York Times would print something this banal.

  • ||

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02.....s.html?hpw

    Dale Hawkins died. Suzy Q was a great song.

  • Bashan||

    This man will not be re-elected because he is obviously not a man. He is a stellar example of the art of appearances. The problem is that the make-up came off so soon.

  • Mountain Vista||

    Sounds like trying to stuff the phenomenon of Obama's Unpopularity into a procrustean bed. Don't be dazzled by patterns. When put on a pedestal one invariably invites disappointment--that's the pattern here. You have to do a better job of looking for what’s not pattern-like. There is plenty. For example, so much hope hung on a guy with no track record to speak of, or a president who was been more outspoken than most about his socialist leanings, or his ability to cater to youthful idealism. He has disappointed all these groups and has "left" himself wide-open for criticism from the right. He has gotten himself into a pickle or a sandwich--a sight for pity.

    In short, don’t be dazzled by the obvious: When you are that high in popularity in the beginning it is true that there really is only one place for you to go and that's down. The new hope is he will stay where he belongs.

  • A is Awesome||

    WHY ISN'T EVERYONE YELLING LIKE THIS ABOUT HOW MUCH OBAMA SUCKS?????!!!!!!

  • Tripleb||

    Obama in 2012? Who cares? Actually could be good, given that the resentment of congressional dems is very real. Nothing is music to my ears like the sound of the gears of government grinding to screeching halt. Absolutely blissful.

  • Evil Teabagger||

    This is really important to Steve, the idea that Obama's actions have nothing to do with his ratings. Is there nothing more pressing in politics right now?

    It may be true that it would be hard to satisfy an electorate on an issue like health care, but Obama's condescending, dishonest approach to the whole issue surely has led to lower ratings. How could it not?

  • ||

    Some really powerful stuff: Obama & Marxism

    http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=20785#comment-25608

  • Thorbie||

    This is the 2nd Steve Chapman article I completely disagree with. First the article portraying the Tea Party movement in the light that MSNBC pundits have, and now this article which completely ignores the fact that Obama has one party government and can pass anything he wants, yet is declining in popularity faster than any modern president. Sure Reagan and Clinton had drops in approval during their first year or two, but with Reagan his policies actually did turn the economy around and with Clinton, his abandon of big government policies and healthcare reform allowed his popularity to recover.

    What's happening with Obama is different. Surely Reason Magazine writers must be among those who know that the recession is not out of Obama's hands. The stimulus package was a massive failure and the Fed's creation of a trillion dollars will simply lead to rising inflation. Further Reason writers know more than anyone that the public is increasingly moving in a more free market direction and Obama is moving in a much more status direction that Bush was heading with healthcare and $3.8 trillion budgets and record budget deficits.

    Certainly the honeymoon is over, but there's a big difference between a natural decline due to political decay and a president who's been compared to more historical leaders than any other, has an incredible celebrity and has majorities in both houses of congress and still can't accomplish anything.

  • slutmonkey||

    Hopefully with the end of the world in 2012 this issue will be moot. >.>

  • ||

    Obama's unpopularity is much stronger than indicated by the polls. He simply is not believed by anyone who has any common sense. He has proven himself to be a Socialist Marxist ideologue and America is a country where a majority of the people still exercise common sense and can SEE that his policies are NONSENSE and are destroying our economy.

    President Reagan NEVER talked down to his supporters or his detractors; he had a sense of humor and EXPERIENCE in life and in governing. Obama's life has been one in which he has never shared common American experiences.

    Obama's popularity will continue to decline as his failed and continuing policies will continue. He does NOT have the ability to be other than what he is - a radical progressive.

    I'll be surprised if his hair isn't completely white by the time he leaves office in 2012. He's done, "stick a fork in him".

  • ||

    If the Dems pass healthcare via reconciliation, then none of them will be reelected in November.

  • ||

    Surveys indicate people think that if his plan passes, they will get "worse care at a higher cost," says Rivers. What do they expect if his plan doesn't pass? "They'll get worse care at a higher cost."

    If his plan doesn't pass, what we'd get is the current level of care we have now at a higher cost, which many seem to like.

    That beats worse care at a higher cost any day.

  • ||

    Good point that all presidents lose popularity their first year, so we conservatives can't just assume Pres. Obama won't bounce back.

  • Talking Reasonoid kens||

    "There is no real evidence to suggest that the public finds Obama far more fallible or detestable than they usually find presidents at this stage." What? We want your libertarian secret decoder ring back.

  • Paul A'Barge||

    "http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2010/02/18/a-pundit-says-what/"

    oops. That has to hurt. Bet that's going to leave a welt, no Mr Chapman?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The only redeeming value of this article is the warning to never count a politician out, especially three years from an actual election. That wasn't really the point of the article, though, was it? The point of the article - that Obama is merely a victim of circumstances - is laughable.

    Is this what passes for logic, and well, reason at Reason now? Maybe the author would be better suited somewhere else. I'm sure there is a place for him in the Obama administration. Maybe he can be the new "Libertarian Outreach Czar" or something.

  • ||

    ........and a very important reason:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104814

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it's literally a labyrinth, that's no joke.

  • ||

    Talk radio an Fox News launched an assault against Obama from the day of the inauguration, starting with Rush Limbaugh's "I hope he fails."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0

  • ||

    You cannot compare Obama to any other Pres., he is our first socialist Pres and LAST!
    None have ever been antiAmerica like this creep is. How many Pres. goes live and says...if you love me you will pass this Bill. What a nut!
    He is losing because people are fed up with his destruction of America and corruption that follows him everywhere.
    He must go and take his Union thugs with him!

  • mbt shoes clearance||

    good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement