The problems with the economy should not be laid at the feet of any President. Government does not control the economy (thank God) and it is the height of folly to assume it does. Can government affect the economy on the margin through fiscal policy and more substantially via regulatory and legal restrictions, sure. Does that mean government controls the economy, nope.

Once you accept this, you can’t lay the problems for the economy on any President. Now the budget is a separate matter. If President Obama would like to lay the interest on the runup in the debt during the Bush administration at the feet of Bush, that’s cool by me. The rest is on him. He and his party control the government. They can pass legislation should they choose to do so. The fact that his budget runs deficits between 3/4 of a trillion and trillion through 2020 is all on him. Bush didn’t sneak in and rewrite his budget. He wrote it. He believes it’s right and like it or hate it, it’s his.

Same was true for Bush, same will be true for the next guy

BTW, the problems with the economy can absolutely be laid at George W’s feet. Obama has addressed them with real action and things have reversed course, they just aren’t good yet. (You obviously are used to instant gratification.) On the flip side, since you mention leadership, what concrete steps have the GOP leadership proposed to help the economy. Ooooh, oooh, oooh! I bet I can guess! Tax cuts?

Leadership is about knowing when and where to compromise. But the Democrat leadership began with a premise of “We won; we get to decide”… shutting out GOPers at every turn and sometimes famously while the camera rolls and Obama told the House GOP leadership their ideas on the budget were DOA at a WH meeting Obama called! Hey Obama, put down the beer summit sloganeering and show basic humility and hospitality to those you’ve asked to speak and meet with, ok? I’m betting you’re a ball hog on the b’ball court, too.

Health care reform could have been achieved in 4-5 months if the WH and the hardcore farLeft Democrats were willing to compromise… “1/4tr of a loaf is always better than just the crumbs in Congress” (Jerry Ford, 1965). A jobs bill could happen, like the Bush era TARP bill, if compromise was a spirit the WH embraced. Bush got what he wanted in that package, in trade, the democrats got to control the fate of 50% of it when Obama came in. Fair enough; compromise worked.

But the Democrats’ ego wouldn’t allow compromise to occur on health care and now countless other efforts. They misjudged their own side’s strength and resolve to hold a liberal course.

Blaming Bush or the GOP won’t work any better than playing the “Ego Rules” game. “We Won; we get to decide”. Well, now you’re losing and we get to help you lose big. Karma, baby.

It’s nearly an epidemic tactic for Democrats. On Wed evening’s SOTS speech, Michigan’s 2 term Democrat governor, Jenny 2-penny Granholm, tried to claim that her 7+ years of failure to solve Michigan’s budget crisis was all due to the former GOP governor John Engler. More hype about Hope. More hype about Change. No leadership again.

It’s been 8 years and it’s still “Just Blame” the other guy. Stunning.

Rather than admitting it’s failed leadership as Democrats brought us to this point. Amazing game of denial that the voters are finally smart to start seeing through… and the Democrats still don’t get “it”.

I think David Alexrod has lost his grip on the shallow political reality he thought was his mandate.

I suspect we’ll see that from here out, however. In the new climate, for example, George Bush could never have passed his tax cut package – it would never have made the floor

Meanwhile, the House still passed a very strong healthcare bill even with those Blue Dog Dems. In fact, Pelosi didn’t even have to really whip them to get it passed.

The problem is that in the Senate, with an opposition dedicated to lockstep opposition, you needed unanimity. And I’m not even sure expectations of unanimity are healthy for a party.

That said, as I noted before – I think Harry Reid should have been much tougher. I think that voting against a bill shows that you don’t favor it. Voting to filibuster a bill shows that you fundamentally don’t trust the people who are crafting the bill. A Dem who would vote to filibuster key legislation from even coming to the floor shouldn’t have any leadership positions, since at that point his signal to the country is that Democrats cannot be trusted.

A strong Senate Majority leader would have taken this position to the public. Reid signaled last spring with his allowing Lieberman to keep his Committee Chair even after he campaigned for McCain that there would never be any serious reprecussions for out and out party disloyalty (and again – I’m not calling voting against a bill disloyal – I’m calling filibustering your party’s legislation disloyal). It wasn’t a surprise that he was walked all over during the healthcare bill given the amount of insurance company money pouring into the coffers of certain Senators.

That’s the unintended consequence of backing “Blue Dog” and “Fighting Dem” and other flavors of moderate Dems in center-right districts in the 2006 and 2008 elections. It worked to the extent that the Dems won majorities in Congress. But once they got to Congress, these moderate Dems balked at supporting the liberal agendas of Obama and Pelosi. Many of them are to the right of either Obama or Pelosi, and intend to win re-election by promising to remain that way.

The liberal “netroots” of the Daily KOS, gleeful at their big electoral wins in 2006 and 2008, didn’t anticipate that would happen.

“The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted.”

But now, the Democrats’ solid majority has been cracked by Brown’s win

Out of curiousity – do you think the Republicans ever had a “solid majority” in the last 20 years?

Because 58-41-1 (I can’t really call Lieberman in the Dems camp, even if he caucuses with them) is still a pretty solid majority to me.

No, it doesn’t mean that you can pass legislation when the entire Republican caucus has determined not to allow you to pass legislation … but the American public will get to judge whether they enjoyed seeing healthcare spending jump to 17% of GNP while tens of millions are still without insurance.

And they’ll know that one party had a plan for how government would close that gap – and one party had obstructionism.

There is a great form of treatment. It entails stopping listening to Rush and watch ing Beck. Then read some articles with facts and stuff in them. That might cure you. Probably not.