Meanwhile, the public will trend towards conservatism, regardless of the party's: one marked by personal initiative, pessimism in terms of risk, and a centering on family, faith, and community. At the same time, I have few expectations that today's presumed leaders or the media organizations that distribute their views will survive the shift. Tomorrow's leaders will be far too busy to bother with a previous generations flawed conceptions and stale arguments.

Funny, after Obama announced his "worrying" agenda, his popularity jumped above 70%, and the Republican party continued to decline in the polls. The "fierce partisanship" appears to be confined to the wingnut loons recently on display at CPAC.

From the Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll:
"President Barack Obama enjoys widespread backing from a frightened American public for his ambitious, front-loaded agenda, a new poll shows.
He is more popular than ever, Americans are hopeful about his leadership, and opposition Republicans are getting drubbed in public opinion, the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds."

RForce needs to wait a minute. General polling always trails moving attitudes. It's like waking up Xmas morning and seeing snow on the ground. Those who know there are seasons can predict that snow will not be there in March.

There is more than one worrisome factor for Obama (and, for that matter, the country)in his budget proposals. First, it is important for the country to see that the President is focusing with laser intensity on
financial/economic recovery---especially when we are nowhere near such a recovery. Second, the ambitious domestic proposals will require tax revenues which simply will not be available in the period covered by the Obama budget. Third, tax increases are precisely what the economy does not need in the present economic environment.

In a far more modest downturn than the present one, President Kennedy
led in 1961 with business and personal tax cuts which "got America moving again," as he had promised in his campaign. Tax cuts stimulate growth; tax increases dampen growth. The stimulus package recently passed by Congress was heavily weighted with public spending programs which will
not create much stimulus in either 2009 or 2010.

I am worried about the proposals because they have little chance of bipartisan support; because they cannot be financed under current economic conditions; and because they distract attention from the immediate and overwhelming need to generate financial/economic revival. Both President Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, have been quoted as stating that the current downturn should be seen as "an opportunity" to press forward with domestic proposals which might otherwise be difficult to pass.
I think they have miscalculated badly. Though public confidence remains high in Obama, it will not remain that way if markets continue to tank; the unemployment rate increases; and the administration's revival programs appear not to be having an effect. Today's high approval ratings will melt like snow.

The formula: First, save our financial system and get our domestic economy perking again. Then, a grateful electorate will be quite willing to proceed with other proposals its new President may offer them.

Obama had a golden opportunity to govern from the center and he botched it. He's very good at giving lip service to bipartisanship, but when it comes to actual policies, he seems happy to let the bitter über-partisans Reid and Pelosi call the shots. To say that this is really a letdown is an understatement. After eight years of big-government Bush, we're now going to be subjected to at least four years of bigger-government Obama. Change you can believe in? This is starting to feel more and more like the 70s, and Obama is starting to look more and more like Jimmy Carter, only with better teeth.

Mr van Dyk makes some great points.

I had high hopes that the president would govern as he campaigned - in a "post partisan" manner. However, on domestic matters he seems to have simply conceded leadership to the highly partisan Congressional Democratic leadership.

Is this just inexperience or lack of will? Has he become Pelosi's "bitch"?

Or was this his intent all along - use the rhetoric of "post partisan" and "change" to get elected then throw it all away?

OK, "like Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and Reagan in 1980"--but if you want THE example of governing as if you won by a landslide, how could you leave out Bush in 2000?

What's your evidence for this fast mobilization?

I see a congressional Republican caucus that refused to work with Obama at all, and were proud of it.

I see some angry folks over at Red State. I see media elites who don't seem to like Obama. I see lots of talk about Civil War on Fox. I see lots of Republican infighting.

This is the serous opposition that has coalesced in record time? I think you're just writing what you wish to be true. Then you say things like "oh, polling doesn't matter ... public opinion will change to fit my views eventually."

As Calvin or Hobbs used to say rolling over and over in a ball of arms, legs, and a tail: "nothing like a good old meeting in the clubhouse!"

Tax cuts are not the end all be all answer to economic problems. If that were the case President Bush's massive tax cuts should have catapulted us into the best economic times ever.

This is not 1961 or 1981 or even 1931. The situation is different and the answers must be different.

Most Presidents are elected because of their opponent's failures. The Republicans are hoping for President Obama's failure, however most Republican governors are falling over themselves for the stimulus money. The challenge I see is for Republicans to keep their unity. Especially if President Obama economic plan begins to work.

Obama is a marxist disaster, trying his darndest to kill the goose (small business and american business in general) that lays the golden eggs. But that is his orientation--he despises capitalism (never mind that he used it to make $4 million dollars off of his book!) and personal responsibility for some weird reason relating to his love of all things marxist. He is solely informed by marxism, and has no clue. Probably because all his key influences growing up were marxist. He has no governing experience to prepare him for what he faces. All he ever knew how to do is run for office. But he has no accomplishments of note as an elected official. He ran as a smooth-talker and not much else. The mask is off; this is who he really is---a huge over-spender who has no regard for anything that made America great. Please don't vote for this guy next time around. He's pushing America off a cliff.

Sdstarr, the Republican caucus did not refuse to work with Obama. Rather, Pelosi and Reid refused to work with the Republicans. They shut the Republicans out of the drafting process and refused to allow amendments. They did not allow Republicans in the Senate/House conference.

Shut out of the Democrat's process, the Republicans offered an alternative. It received no Democratic votes.

Obama could have told Pelosi and Reid to involve the Republicans. He chose not to.

How is that post-partisan? How is that the vaunted "change?" Sounds to me just like more of the same, with Dems in charge instead of Republicans

I can sum this up very simply Jimmy Carter 2.0!!!!!

Ted--

I agree tax increases probably don't help much at a time like this. But government's role right now is complicated and difficult. It has to provide a safety net which includes health care reform. It has to stimulate the economy because neither businesses or consumers are doing it. In other words, it has to spend money. If you don't raise taxes, that means deficit spending. That's not a partisan issue unless the Republicans decide to make it one. They engaged in eight years of deficit spending just for the sake of not raising taxes. Now the stakes are greater. If Obama engages in the sort of penny pinching that Herbert Hoover from 1928-1932 did then he will get what Herbert Hoover got, a longer, deeper recession/depression. The gamble is that America will come out the other side of this thing like gang busters and those deficits will melt away. It's really the only choice and Obama realizes that .

There has always been a very strong Republican base and, of course, they were opposed to Obama. Why is this news? Obama has only been in office a short time, but has inherited a terrrible mess. Trying to desperately please the Republicans, who are mostly responsible for this mess in the first place, is not likely to lead to good results either. I am not sure Obama is overreaching at all, although he has certainly been accused of this by pundits for the last two years. Bold measures may be the only thing that will get us out of this soup and some do not think that these are even bold enough.

Well gee Van Dyk its March and I have a couple of inch's of snow on the ground plus my 2nd white Christmas in my life. As i reminded my uncle a few weeks ago who was mad at Obama already it took him at least 6 weeks to just get through boot camp in WWII. I know we cant change the course of anything in this country in 8 weeks and I don't understand all this frustration with Obama or the attempts to improve the country after 8 years of unnecessary war, overspending and eating away at our Bill of Rights. Heck I didn't even get through college in 8 weeks. How many other examples do you need of patience?

Comments in response to several of yours:

Yes, of course, patience will be required until we rise out of our current financial/economic troubles. And no one suggests---I certainly do not---that bold measures will not be required to do it.

My concern, as expressed, is that the measures currently being employed are not sufficiently bold or appropriate. We need even stronger measures, and more spending if necessary, focused on lifting us out of what is becoming a more dangerous trough. But the efforts must be focused. Right now the administration is proceeding simultaneously with many agenda items---some of which do not relate directly to revival---and is accepting accepting Congressional spending and earmarks which the President earlier said he would reject. The Treasury and White House, meanwhile, have not yet presented the formal framework in which the financial rescue is to proceed. That is why financial markets have plunged.

Strong, bold, directed action toward economic revival is the order of the day---and should be the only order of the day until recovery begins. We all will be mistaken if we brush the present troubles off as business as usual or spend time blaming them on GW Bush, Clinton and earlier administrations or on one political party or another. Wall Streeters, former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, regulators, banks, quasi-public agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, mortgage companies, and those giving congressional oversight all can line up for blame. We are in the midst of our deepest financial/economic troubles, now worldwide, since the Great Depression. Time for everyone to get informed and get serious.

Obama is a one-night stand. Unfortunately for most voters (not me), that night was the first Tuesday of November.

Now that the sleep is falling from people's eyes, they are vaguely remembering an elderly man from Arizona saying "I know how to fix it".

Meanwhile, El Presidente is still floundering around, starting focus groups saying "can someone tell me how to fix this?"

The 9/11 attacks and 3,000 dead Americans occured on Bush's watch.

Osama bin Laden escaped on Bush's watch.

Both Bush and Cheney dodged the draft to get out of Vietnam but are eager to send other people to die in war. That's a chickenhawk.

Bush lied about WMD, illegally invaded Iraq, and found no WMDs and 4,200 American soldiers died for his lie.

Bush exposed covert CIA agents. He's a traitor.

Bush ignored the advice of the generals and micro-managed the Iraq war from the Oval Office, resulting in a complete debacle and 4,200 dead American soldiers.

Bush cut the military budget for medical and psychiatric care at the same time he sent us to war without body armor. He's a traitor.

Bush and the GOP Congress grew government more than any president since LBJ.

The financial collapse occured on Bush's watch.

The banking collapse occured on Bush's watch.

The mortgage collapse occured on Bush's watch.

Scientific research was crippled on Bush's watch.

New Orleans was destroyed on Bush's watch.

Our wounded warriors lived amongst mold and filth at Walter Reed on Bush's watch.

The Taliban grew stronger and re-took much of Afghanistan on Bush's watch.

Bush turned Bill Clinton's surplus into a $12 trillion debt.

Bush sold over $2 trillion of our debt to China. He's a traitor.