The "Weiner-Gate" Scandal

For those not up-to-date on this "scandal" let's review (much of this is courtesy of HuffPo):

Everything started on May 20, 2011, when Andrew Breitbart (notorious conservative scandalmonger, mud-slinger, lier, and all around bad man) got a call from Meagan Broussard claiming she had an online relationship with Rep. Anthony Weiner.

May 27, 2011, a picture of a bulging penis is tweeted (accidentally?) from Rep. Weiner's account and then quickly removed.

May 28, 2011, Unfortunately, ever vigilant for a new scandal, BigGovernment.com (Andrew Breitbart's sleaze and vitriol filled blog) caught the tweet and reported it with the help of ABC.

May 29, 2011, Rep. Weiner tries to downplay the whole situation by claiming his account was hacked.  Over the next few days he continues to refuse to get law enforcement involved, and claims it was little more than an over blown prank.

June 01, 2011, The "scandal" continuing to bounce around the media echo chamber, Rep. Weiner goes into damage control mode.  He shows up on media shows for the next few days and reiterates his claims that his account was hacked.  Interestingly (and almost admirably), he refuses to say that the picture is not his.  When I first saw his appearances (see Rachel Maddow Show) I figured that the picture probably was his and I was happy that he didn't lie about that.  I wish he had come clean about the whole thing, but you take what you get when it comes to politicians.

June 06, 2011, Breitbart's scandal-blog publishes a self-aggrandizing story claiming that a new woman has come forward.  New photos surface, which breath new life into the dying story.  This time the photos are a little more revealing and leave little doubt that the rumors were true.  At 2:30PM, Meagan Broussard "speaks out" (that is media-speak for people taking advantage of their 15 minutes of fame).  Almost laughably she claims she is making a spectacle of herself in hopes that the media will then leave her alone (the old joke "that's like f***ing for virginity" comes to mind).  At 4:00PM, Breitbart hijacks Rep. Weiner's Press Conference (before Weiner gets there), and bloviates about being vindicated (one can but wonder where security was during all this).  At 4:30PM, Rep. Weiner, admits to sending the racy photos and apologizes (even to Breitbart for some reason I can't quite fathom).  Rep. Pelosi, then calls for an ethics investigation later that evening

Since then the scandal has taken off with Democrats trying to do damage control.  From the left we've heard reactions from Senator Harry Reid, Anchor Ed Schulz (who begged him to resign), and House Democratic Committee Chairwoman Rep. Wasserman Schulz (who officially called for his resignation). Even the White House (In a pathetic attempts to "jump on the political bandwagon"), spoke up this week, calling the whole thing "inappropriate" and a "distraction."  Thank you Mr. President for stating the obvious.

His wife has since said that she's gonna stick by him (for the time being).

Most Republicans recognized the potential for disastrous charges of hypocrisy (think David Vitter) and stayed out of the fray.  Indeed, Rachel Maddow called it right on Letterman when she pointed this fact out.  Here is another good post on the topic of Republican hypocrisy in this scandal.  As the scandal has grown a few Republicans have entered the fray.  Rep. Cantor has recently suggested that Democrats should be pushing harder for a Weiner resignation.

Perhaps the only sane voice in this whole thing has, shockingly, been Alec Baldwin, who stated what most American's were thinking: "He is a modern human being."

The Scandal continues even as Rep. Weiner enters treatment (for "sex addiction").  There are even new allegations there one of the women might have been a 17-year old.  Though Rep. Weiner maintains that the correspondences with the teen were not explicit.

UPDATE (06.16.11): Rep. Weiner has resigned

MY THOUGHTS:

(1) WHO THE FUCK CARES!?

I think what bothers me most about this scandal is that the ONLY problem I can find is that the guy is married.  That makes is sleazy, but it's not illegal, it's not even unethical (at least as far as his job in Congress is concerned).  Why should American's care about the women to whom he shows his dingy?  I honestly, could care less.

(2) I don't want him to resign, because I like his policy positions!

Something we lose track of in these whole fiascos is the policy positions of the people we tar and feather.  I'd be fine if he resigned, but I don't mind having him in Congress because I like what he stands for on policy issues.  Really, that should be all that matters to people.  The obvious retort is that this position would then excuse all members of congress who do dirty things.  That's not true.  Rep. Weiner has never once claimed to be an example of family values or perfect personal virtue.  Republicans (who are trashing him left and right) do claim these things.  That makes what they do ten times worse.  It's hard to hold a person to a standard they have never claimed for themselves, but I have no problem demanding the resignation of bible-thumping, family values conservatives who claim they live by the same values they try to force on others.  There is a pretty clear difference.

(3) Treatment is a MASSIVE copout and the Media needs to call him on it

The concept of going to treatment has been the biggest hollywood/politician copout and we all know it.  Lindsey goes to rehab, gets out, and starts doing drugs all over again.  Politicians go to rehab just to placate their moron constituencies who don't recognize that it's a massive ploy to get people to forget what they did.  Furthermore, how is he claiming that sending dirty pictures (something all men do in the digital age) translates into a sex addiction?  Can someone please explain that to me?  Why isn't the media asking that question?  they were not willing to take his claims of hacking at face value, but suddenly they are willing to take his claims of sex addiction?  That's not right!  If you are going to investigate, then investigate, don't just repeat the stupid shit people tell you.

(4) IT'S NOT A SEX SCANDAL!!!

Sex scandals require sex... that should just be obvious.

(5) Republicans HAVE done worse

In politics, the politically correct thing to say is always "both sides do it."  That's fine, and certainly true.  Both parties have their legitimate sex scandals, but let's not pretend that Dems are even in the same league as the GOP.  GOP politicians are regularly getting themselves, not only into sex scandals, but REALLY SKETCHY scandals.  In CA, an anti-gay assemblyman picks up a young man at a gay bar for sex and gets caught.  Vitter was a regular of the DC maddam (and got re-elected).  Sen. Craig solicited sex in a f***ing airport bathroom.  They even had an anti-gay politician sexting an underage male page.  I mean this is some REAL scandalous stuff.  And you're going to compare it to a guy who used to be one of NY's most eligible bachelors sexting woman on twitter?  Not even comparable.  Not even close.  Anyone who pulls the "both parties do it" card is a moron, and should be called out.  This scandal doesn't even fall on the same spectrum as GOP scandals.

(6) Did the media suddenly discover a cache of angry Rep. Weiner Pictures?

Why is it that the media suddenly latched on to all these REALLY ugly pictures of Rep. Weiner?  If you are supposedly reporting the facts, do you really need to paint the guy in the worst light possible?  That doesn't seem very fair.  Not that I pay that much attention, but it is a little annoying when they have THIS picture on the front of every article.  I'm just saying. (Notice how I picked a relatively normal picture for my post!)

Should he resign?  maybe.  But let's not pretend that he'll be resigning because he did something "wrong."  He'll be resigning because of a manufactured sh*t storm and a media that just can't seem to control themselves.  He'll be resigning because OUR (and the media's) ridiculous obsession with people's personal lives is preventing him from doing his job.  He should be embarrassed that his lack of self-control came to light, but if he resigns, it'll be because of OUR lack of self-control, not his.

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "Death of the Liberal Class"

By Chris Hedges

Score: 4 / 5
Category: History, Politics

Recommended

My Thoughts: This book is basically a long drawn out way of saying "intellectuals have lost their balls and become the lapdogs of powerful special interests."  The information is interesting but sometimes repetitive, and it doesn't need to be nearly as long as it is.

The point he is trying to make is valid.  For the better part of our history (something also talked about in "Idiot America") America was renowned for our "cranks" (crazy people with crazy ideas), but we never submitted to being ruled by cranks.  It was the unwritten duty of the "liberal class" (the intellectuals) to pick through the crazy and keep any nuggets of worthwhile information they presented.  Over the past 40 years, during the conservative take over, intellectuals have largely abandoned that duty, instead becoming the talking heads for and giving credibility to some of the most outrageous ideas one can imagine.

Perhaps his best example is of Noam Chomsky.  Chomsky is perhaps one of the few great intellectuals left in America, yet he is often villified even by those who agree with him because he speaks out against the kinda of crank BS that has become mainstreamed.  The media only makes it worse.  In a field that used to be an intellectual stronghold, media outlets have become propaganda machines for one party or the other, or worse (CNN) they report without any investigation at all.  The intellectual class has largely been corrupted and pressed into the service of large corporate, political, and special interests, and as a result we are becoming a country controlled by the cranks.

A good book.  A little dense and at times repetitive, but worth reading for the point the author is trying to make.  All intellectuals should take the advice and start speaking out against the cranks and the special interests.  The Liberal class can live again!

By it on Amazon

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin"

By Frank Bailey w/ Ken Morris and Jeanne Devon

Score: 3 / 5
Category: Political Insider, Tell-All Memoir

Recommended

My Thoughts: I bought this on a whim at Target.  I figured it would be a fun read.  To be fair, I was kinda bored with my "legal" books and I wanted something a little trashier.  I figured a book about Sarah Palin could certainly fill that need.

I was not disappointed.  This book is a traditional "Tell-All" memoir.  It reveals the terrifying, emotionally unbalanced Sarah Palin that we all knew was there (well at least those of us curious enough to look past her charming demeanor or smart enough to despise the concept of "folksy").  Through chapter after chapter, the authors absolutely destroy Sarah Palin, but they do so without uttering much of their own words.  The story is bolstered almost entirely by email conversations (often heavily edited, so, to be fair, its possible they are not as crazy as they sounds in the book).  In the emails Sarah is portrayed as an emotional disaster, prone to outbursts, often ungrateful, and always unstable.  More than once she threatens to quit in a vain effort to get her staff to coddle her, and her "Palin-bots" (as the authors refer to themselves) eagerly comply.  On more than one occasion we are introduced to incredibly unethical behavior that was swept under the rug while she maintained an image of anti-corruption.

And all of this is coming from someone who remains a staunch Conservative.  Mr. Bailey talks god and conservative principles none stop in this book.  He is clearly as staunch a conservative as he has ever been.  This is not someone who converted and is now attacking his old boss.  This is someone who spent years as a Palin-Punching-Bag, and finally saw her for who she really is; a crazy, mentally unstable, crazy person.  The God references get old for those who don't believe in that kind of thing, but it further reinforces the fact that this is an extreme conservative calling Palin out (Not a liberal, not a moderate, not even a moderate conservative).  In short, once you get over the "glittering generalities" and see Ms. Palin for who she is, even the most hardcore conservatives will realize how bad she is for this country.

This book is almost scary.  How a person like this almost became the Vice-President of the United States, is unfathomable.  It is a slap in the face to anyone who wants our public figures to have any clue about what they are doing.  We almost elected a personality not only without substance, but possibly mentally unstable.  This book doesn't reveal anything we shouldn't have already known, but it exposes a side of our almost VP that should be terrifying to every American.

Buy it on Amazon

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "The Conservative Assault on the Constitution"

By Erwin Chemerinsky

Score: 4.5 / 5
Category: Law, Constitutional Law, History

Strongly Recommended

My Thoughts: Prof. Chemerinsky proves once again why he is one of the (if not THE) most influential constitutional scholars of our generation.  This books outlines a number of 5 - 4 decisions from the Burger, Reinquist, and Roberts courts that have taken the country away from the promise created by the Warren Court, and in a very conservative direction.  Indeed, with the exit of O'Connor and the addition of Alito, the 5-4 votes have become even more predictable, and even more dangerous for basic civil rights.

The book itself is what you would expect.  Impeccably well researched and thoughtful, but represents the opinion of a constitutional scholar who believes in a broad interpretation of the constitution and a power federal government.  This fact does not make his insights any less valuable, however, I found that I did not always agree with him on everything.  Prof. C argued, exceptionally well in almost every instance, for the defense of basic rights we have come to rely on, such as Miranda, Access to the Courthouse, Privacy, etc.  However, the point at which I found myself diverging with his view was when he would suggest there were numerous constitutional rights we have not yet discovered in the Constitution.

For instance, he begins the book with a discussion of how Conservatives have undone the promise of Brown v. Board, and re-segregated most inner city school.  I completely agreed with his belief that the 14th Amendment prohibits the negative use of Race, but not the positive use of race (think "using race to oppress one race (negative) vs. using race to equalize the rights/privileges/opportunities of the races (positive)).  This is not the first time that I have heard this argument with regard to the intent of the 14th Amendment's drafters, yet it is a reality ignored by the conservative block, despite their claims of fidelity to intent.

Where I diverge from Prof. C is when he calls for a Constitutional right to Education.  I do not believe such a right exists in the FEDERAL constitution.  Education was left to the states, and I believe that is a correct practice.  Even though we might wish to impose a liberal view on many of the backwards states through federal control, there is always the danger that the reverse might happen.  Conservatives might take control of government and impose a terrible education system on progressive states (in fact, this has happened over the past 40 years, e.g. NCLB).  Each state should be free to create their own systems, and free to interpret a right to Education out of their own State Constitutions.  But the Federal Government should stay out of education as much as possible, lest we inadvertently allow the Texas Textbook Massacre to spread to progressive states and corrupt their education systems.

There were a few other instances where I found I did not agree, but it was almost always limited to situations where Prof. C wanted to CREATE new constitutional rights.  I agreed in every instance where I wanted to preserve or expand rights that already existed.  Like Prof. C I believe that more freedom is almost always a good thing (though the expansion of Gun rights may be an exception).

Overall, GREAT book, very informative and educational.  The only reason it doesn't get a 5 is because he goes just slightly further than I would be comfortable with, but If we had someone like this on the Court, we would certainly be in a better position than we are at present.  An excellent, and very fast read.  Worth the few hours it will take you to finish.

Buy it on Amazon

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court"

By Jeff Shesol

Score: 5 / 5
Category: Law, Presidents, Supreme Court, History, Educational

Strongly Recommended

My Thoughts:  This was a really interesting about about the New Deal period.  Too often we learn about the "court packing plan" without actually learning the facts about the plan or the surrounding circumstances.  This book fills the gap perfectly.

The book opens with a long explanation of FDR's first term in office, his political rivalries, and the conservative intransigence that would later characterize the conservative block on the Court.  Of particular interest is the American Liberty League, which bears a striking resemblance to today's TEA Party.  The League spouted a return to "constitutional principles" and "small government."  This call worked well in a time when FDR was expanding the size of the federal government and the power of the president.  Unfortunately for them, they quickly became a caricature of themselves and lost all credibility (much like the TEA Party of today).  In his second election he decimated the Conservative opposition.

With his victory in both the executive and legislative branches, the Conservative block on the court dug their heels in and the two moderates (C.J. Hughes and J. Roberts) migrated to the conservative block on a number of occasions giving them the commanding 5 or 6 vote majorities they needed to overturn the president's agenda.  The actual court packing plan itself went through many stages and court packing wasn't even a realistic option until later in the process.  Many congressmen preferred constitutional amendments limiting the power of the court or giving congress a veto over court decisions.  When court packing did become the plan, FDR didn't want 15 justices, he wanted one justice for each justice over 70 years of age.  The number of new justices just happened to be 15.  Realistically, FDR was only one justice away from a stable majority, so he didn't need to add 6 to make his agenda work.  He just wanted a strong majority that could completely dominate the Conservative justices.

What is particularly interesting is how forcefully FDR continued to push his court packing plan even after Hughes and Roberts switched to the liberal block giving FDR the majority he so desired.  Fortunately, the congress saw the change on the court as a good solution that didn't involve passing an unpopular and potentially damaging bill that would certainly turn the court into a political football (or at least more so than it already is).

The perspectives of the justices through their personal corespondences with friends, family, and clreks are also a very interesting part of the book.  It's quite interesting to hear the vitriol of Justice McReynolds, and the reverence of Justice Brandais for the institution of the court (who opposed the plan even though it would have given him a majority).

This is an excellent book for those interested in history and the law, presidential power, and/or the Supreme Court.

Buy it on Amazon

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "Idiot America"

By Charles P. Pierce

Score: 4 / 5

Category: Quasi-Politics, Entertaining, Funny, Informative but Not Educational

Strongly Recommended

My Thoughts: This was a fun book.  There was nothing really new in the book.  No information that I didn't already know (though if you haven't heard of the "creation museum" then you should probably read this book for his description of it).  What really makes this book awesome is the author's wit and sarcasm, and the way that he points out all of the ridiculousness that should be obvious.

In particular I enjoyed his three principles of idiot America.  It's so true, and once you read the book you start to see the principles at work with every news story in the media today.  It's very much a "truth isn't what it used to be" book, that points out the many ways that conservatives in particular have glorified idiots and idiot ideas, even to the extent of demonizing knowledge/education itself.

I especially appreciated his "behind the scenes" thoughts and discussions on hot topic political issues.  It's the kind of thing you'd expect normal reporters to do, but (shockingly?) never happens.  He goes to the Hospice where Terry Schiavo died and talks to the workers about the incident.  His discussion of this section is especially powerful, since he exposes some of the terrifying things that were done in the name of saving someone who everyone in the hospice knew had already been dead for years.  In fact, she an autopsy confirmed that she had been dead long before the whole uproar even began.  So divorced from reality were the "pro-life" devotees that they were willing to fight (and in some cases even kill) to save someone who was already dead.

I also loved his discussion of "talk radio" though I will let you read/listen to that yourselves.  I could not possibly do justice to his take on the evolution of talk radio.

Overall, this is a very interesting book, though I would not recommend people use it to educate themselves about any of the issues within.  It is better as an excellent (and hilariously entertaining) supplement pointing out the glaring problems with the conservative/idiot beliefs on a number of issues.

Buy It on Amazon

Common Sense

Falling From Grace: Obama's Tax Cut Compromise

So, I've been generally disappointed with the President for some time now.  He gave us health care that largely supported the status quo, and while 30 million americans will now be forced into the health care system, and premiums may decrease for 100 million more, the benefits are largely in favor of the major health care organizations, not to mention without a public option there is still very little competition to ensure that prices don't continue to increase astronomically.

Then he back tracked on Repeal of DADT.  Then he dropped the close of GitMo.  Then he conveniently kicked the can on Afghanistan.  Now we've got a finance regulation bill, that does little to curb the already rampent abuse.

In 2002 George Bush had all but eliminated the major regulations in place to protect our economy from this kind of recession, passed sweeping $3 trillion tax cuts aimed predominantly at the wealthy, and sent us to war.  in 2008 we hired a guy to fix all that... you'd think by now he would have gotten to one of those three.  (oops, sorry I suppoose he did "end" the war in iraq...unless you count those 50K troops still there...details).

So we've gotten a lackluster president at best, and suddenly he's pissed at us.  Sorry buddy, that's not how this works.  You want our support, you do what you were elected to do, and pandering to the Republicans wasn't just low on our list, it really wasn't there.  So you'll have to excuse us if we are kinda pissy right now.

Anyway, lets stick to this Tax Compromise and lets explore whata just happened.  Unemployment benefits are about to lapse.  Tax cuts for everyone are about to lapse.  The only one of those two that was an issue was Tax Cuts.  You know how I know that unemployment was not an issue?  simple.  If Republicans vote against extending unemployment, who loses?  DUH!  Republicans would face enormous backlash.  So, really, they were going to cave on that issue, they were just playing games.

So what happened, they took a position everyone knew they were going to back down from, and Obama caved... Yeah, perfect opportunity to hang the republicans out to dry and Obama caved... This is politics 101, I'm not saying that it's right to extend unemployment, I'm saying it was going to happen, period.

So let's explore what the Republicans got for being dicks.  They got the tax cuts for their wealthy supporters AND they got to vote yes on unemployment which will help them politically.  What did Democrats get?  they lost on tax cuts when they were right, and they got unemployment benefits they were going to get anyway.

How is this a win for both sides?  The democrats should have eaten the Republicans' god damn lunch!  This should have been a HUGE win for the democrats!  They should have gotten their unemployment AND stuck it to the Republicans on tax cuts.  Here's the message "Republicans hold your employment benefits hostage so they can kick back millions to wealthy donors."  WHO THE WAS GOING TO WIN THAT ARGUMENT?!

So no Mr. President, I'm not pissed that you are compromising, I'm pissed that you are giving them your f***ing lunch money on issues you not only can win, but on issues where you are guaranteed a win!

On a side-note the NONPARTISAN Congressional Budget Office predicts that extending the tax cuts would increase the deficit by $700 Billion over 10 years and $4 Trillion over it's lifetime (if fully extended).

Oh and if you are currious about the economic impact of the Bush Tax cuts, only about 7% of those tax cuts came back as increased revenue to the federal government, the other 93% was taken entirely as debt so we could give handouts to the wealthiest Americans. (See "Why We're Liberals" by Eric Alterman)

Just so we are all aware of who won, here were some of the people who opposed this compromise that have come out in just the past 24hrs.

On The Left:
The AFL-CIO
Former DNC Chair Howard Dean
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) - Conservative Democrat
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.)
Steve Hildebrand, Deputy National Director of Obama's Presidential Campaign

On The Right:
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

So, you're compromises is pretty much universally disgusted by the left, including at least one high profile conservative Democrat, and at least one Republican.  So no Mr President, we will not shut up while you seed control of the government, policy, and our economy future to a party that was voted out of office 2 years ago, and wasn't even re-elected (in the senate) a month ago despite your miserable failure as a President.  It baffles me the extent to which this President seems to completely disregard his responsibility to this country by continuously handing over decision-making power to the people who f***ed it up in the first place!

Here is a depiction that seems to represent my anger (and the anger of a lot of other people: see comments on Huff Po)

Step-up Mr. President or step-aside and let us elect a real liberal in 2012.  As it is I wont be voting for this president in the primaries, and I'm certainly considering doing something I've never done before: Campaigning for the other guy just to prove my point.

Common Sense

UPDATE (12/08/10):
The following people have now also come out against the compromise.

On the Left:
Rep. Barnie Frank (D-MA)
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) - Also suggesting he may not support the president's re-election
Keith Olberman (Anchor - MSNBC)
Arianna Huffington (Founder of Huffington Post) - Not that I like her

On the Right:
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) - Has also promised to Fillibuster if it comes up for a vote
Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) - Though she clearly doesn't understand what the compromise actually does (who's shocked by that?)

(Side-Note: I would like to take this opportunity to say, I never thought I would see the day when I would agree with Michelle Bachman on ANYTHING!  I am truly disgusted by this turn of events and it should suggest just how far the President has fallen.)

In addition, VP Joe Biden was hounded by House Democrats at a meeting today held in the hopes of rallying support.  The following reps expressed serious concerns, and will likely oppose the deal:
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Rep. Chris Wan Hollen (D-MD)

So far the only people to openly support the deal are a handful of people who have kept their mouths shut because they know it is a bad deal, Speaker Pelosi, The President, His Staff (who are really the only people making the case for the compromise), and Sen. Mitch McConnell.  Not exactly the company the president should be seeking right now.

If you ask me, whatever political capital he had left, is now gone.  Whatever good faith he maintained with the base that he has spent 2 years ignoring is now gone.  The voices in favor of a primary challenger are growing stronger, and this compromise will haunt him for the rest of his first term.

UPDATE (12/10/10)
Bernie Sanders Quasi-Filibusters on Friday
Though he is not preventing any legislation from being considered or being voted on, he will be spending the entire day talking, reading letters from constituents, and otherwise educating people on the truths behind this deal.

Some interesting facts:
The extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy affect < 5% of the US population
The estate tax affects < 0.3% of the US population (only affects the mega-rich)

Furthermore, Obama now claims that these cuts will not create a single job in the US.

So let's review:
Extending the Bush tax cuts will...
NOT create a single job;
cost $700 billion over 10 years;
that will be almost entirely borrowed (93%); and
affect < 5% of the US population.

IF you are interested in who is opposed to the deal, the tally of Democratic votes in the House is 68-11 against the compromise


And I'm supposed to be rewarding the president for a 2-year extension just to get 13 months of unemployment benefits?  How about no...
 
In Short: Democrats may filibuster in the Senate, and more than 25% of House democrats have vowed to vote no.

What The F*** Has Obama Done So Far?

In honor of this new website promoting Obama's achievements, I'd like to point all the things he has FAILED to do while in office that he should have been doing.

(1) Failed to repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
(2) Failed to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act
(3) Failed to have a public option included in the Health Care Bill
(4) Failed to beat back a Democratic-sponsored amendment to the Health Care Bill attacking women's rights
(5) Failed to remove and replace key Bush-era officials controlling (suppressing) science policy
(6) Failed to pass comprehensive Climate Change legislation
(7) Failed to discredit and brush off the Tea Party
(8) Failed to defend the left-wing and mainstream media from Republican/Fox Noise attacks
(9) Failed to exit the war in Afghanistan during the first term of his presidency
(10) Failed to close the Guantanamo Bay prison
(11) Failed to forcefully respond to the Texas Textbook Massacres
(12) Failed to restore protective regulations on corporations
(13) Failed to prevent 3 Big Banks from absorb all their competitors and creating a de facto monopoly
(14) Failed to realize that its a bad idea to mess with the tax code
(15) Failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform
(16) Failed to protect latino citizens from racial profiling

Just generally failed to turn the country in a more liberal direction (the mandate he was given in 2008)
During his presidency Republicans have gained ground in nearly every area they have put up a fight.

Honestly, I plan on voting against Obama in the Primaries in 2012.

I still haven't decided if I will vote for him in the general,

Common Sense

Media Malpractice: Fox News Rejects Pro-DADT Repeal Advertisements

But they are totally fair and balanced right?  It's not like they are trying to push an agenda.  Who would ever suggest such a thing...

Huffington Post

Common Sense

TeaBaggers: Polls Show Tea Party values are NOT shared by "average" Americans

There's a shock!  Where the hell was this information 18 months ago?  Where was this information last summer when the media across the spectrum was treating the Tea Partiers like the God-sent representatives of the people?  Where the hell was this information when it could have been of some use?!

As far as I'm concerned this is just more evidence of the extreme cowardice of the left-leaning media.  They have become so unjustifiably afraid of being bashed by Fox Noise, that they are no longer doing their jobs!

Exibit A: NYT Investigation of incoming GOP Senator drops AFTER election

Exibit B: Tea Baggers are NOT "average" Americans

Two articles that could have been damning to the Tea Party Republicans, and we don't hear about it until after the damage has been done.

WTF!

Common Sense