Yes We Can (or Might be Able to if the GOP Wants it)

In case you are immune to being repeatedly bashed in the head by 24 hour news reports, this is an election year. And *gasp* it isn't just any election year. It's a mid-term election year! Needless to say it's a boon for windbags and pundits, such as myself. So, what does it all mean? A bit of history first:

There have been seventeen mid-term elections since 1942. The party of the sitting President has gained or broke even in the Senate five times. Even more ominous, only twice has the President's party avoided losses for shizzle in the Hizzle, er, House. Needless to say, history suggests the Democrats have the same chance as a hooker at a Southern Baptist convention of coming out on top. Conversely they both are likely to get something stuck up their ass.

Anyway, this particular presidency has many extraneous challenges. We are currently mired in two wars that we can't afford and can't win. We are stuck in a global recession. We have a national debt that is too massive for comprehension. We have a trade deficit that is only good for driving up that debt. We need a good energy bill to move us away from foreign oil and a good immigration bill to move us away from having the Beverly Hillbillies guarding our southern border.

To be frank, this is the most challenging presidency since FDR. By the way, in 1942 with the country just out of the Great Depression and just in to WWII, FDR's Democrats lost 45 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate. Thanks for nothing I suppose. At any rate, all signs point to difficulty for the Dems in the 2010 election. Looking at history, that's no surprise.

But while Congressional approval ratings hang very low normally, why is the President's dropping so fast? And more to the point, why is President Obama's political base (like me) wavering in their support?

Before we get all gloom-and-doom about it, a quick survey of recent history shows that this isn't that new. For example, right after President Obama was elected, before he even took office, Politico ran this story proclaiming anger amongst the tree-huggers. And although overlooked by many at the time, this story turned out to be more foreshadowing than we thought about Obama's leadership style and his disappointing of liberals across the nation.

But what are we angry about? After all, the President and Congress have passed a major health care bill, financial reform, and a stimulus bill. Those are not accomplishments to sneeze at. They handled the possibility of a swine flu pandemic well. And even though they may have been a little slow to get involved, the BP well is capped, the reimbursement fund set up, and oil seems to be disappearing from the Gulf quickly. By almost any measure, President Obama's policy achievements have been awesome.

And it isn't the economy, stupid, that we are upset about. Realistically it will take a long time for employment to stabilize. The Obama administration has had, as one should expect in such a situation, apparent successes (programs like "Cash for Clunkers" and the handling of GM and Chrysler) and some things which we don't know about yet (the stimulus bill, financial reform). No matter how you look at it, the administration has moved on trying to improve the economy and they've done pretty well for only being 18 months in.

And while most liberals are upset both about the realization that the climate change bill has melted like snow in a greenhouse, and any immigration bill keeps being deported from Congress, those problems have as much to do with partisan gridlock in Congress as they do with any failing of President Obama.

It is here that you need to understand an important point. If Republicans are going to stay this strongly banded together in opposition, bills can not pass. That's simple math. Many are upset that President Obama hasn't "fought" hard enough. Many of the same members of the "liberal elite" are also quick to point out that for all the compromise and arguing done on the health care bill, not one Republican vote was earned. Just so we're clear, you all want the President, with the huge laundry list of problems that need solving, to give speeches all over the place all the time about us needing to put a price on carbon in this economy even though you willingly admit that it will likely not earn him a single Republican vote. Therefore making it impossible to pass whether he stumps for it or not. Hmmmm...

Now, I obviously want a climate bill as bad as any other liberal, but reality is reality. If Obama had put climate change first, people would say he should have focused on health care. Things got done, choices were made. We'll have to keep fighting if we want climate change legislation.

No, my problem with President Obama has to do with a very common talking point he used in his campaign. Time and time again, then Senator Obama talked about former President Bush's disregard for civil liberties. He promised to cease the practice of holding terror suspects endlessly without trial and, in certain cases, with little or no evidence of their involvement. Adjacent to that promise, Obama vowed to close Guantanamo Bay military prison, end the practice of rendition (the moving of terror suspects to countries where torture is less, shall we say, frowned upon, for interrogation), and abide by the rule of law.

However, here we are 18 months into this presidency and Guantanamo is still open. President Obama has actually fought to keep the right to hold terror suspects indefinitely. Rendition is still in the President's "tool box" to deal with terrorism.

In the end, this is what irritates the hell out of us liberals. When it comes to the firing of Shirley Sherrod or Stanley McChrystal, Obama is decisive and quick, perhaps to his detriment. But when it comes to cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf, studies are performed and committees made. How about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, for crying out loud, said he'd like to see the policy ended. Instead, we are doing another study. This is an interesting study because normally the commander of the military doesn't ask the troops if possible future orders are okay. Usually he just gives the orders and they follow it because that's their job.

Perhaps President Obama has focused too much on delivering all the complex and, legislatively, big things he promised. Health care and financial reform were very needed and very hard. Immigration and climate change are as well. While we all hope D.C. can come to some compromises and get these things done; please, Mr. Obama, knock out some of the other things for us.

Put those terror suspects on trial. If they are guilty, lock their asses away for as long as law allows. If they are not, return them to their families and homes. No person deserves to be held against their will when they have done nothing wrong. The only way to find out if we are doing that, and then begin the healing associated with righting that wrong, is to put them on trial. Stop moving people to secret prisons where they are tortured for information. And close Guantanamo. If NYC won't hold the terror trials, I'm sure you know people in Chicago who can make that happen.

I'm not losing the "Hope" yet, but I'm sure thinking that "Yes We Might" makes a shitty bumper sticker.