@ Reconciler

1) For the sake of clarity (for all) it would be helpful if you would put citations from others in proper quotation marks, and separate them clearly from your own text.

2) It is true that German leaders (and, to a much lesser extent, certain Japanese leaders) have on occasion apologized for specific actions related to WW2.   However, these apologies are very much in the past and, as far as I know, were always expressed in a context related to WW2 (memorials and the like), limited to WW2 actions, and addressed to specific victims of those actions. Contemporary German leaders, and certainly not Japanese leaders, do NOT go around the world apologizing for their own culture in a vague general way, nor do they criticise their democratic predecessors and domestic political opponents on foreign soil.

3) I have seen on occasion European leftist politicians (and royal buffoons as well) making vague apologetic statements about past European colonialism in foreign lands and in international fora, but rarely in relation to their own specific country. I have never seen nonwestern political leaders making apologies for their own cultures and their countries' actions while being abroad or in an international forum. This phenomenon of apologies by political leaders is properly associated with leftist Western cultural self-hatred.

Do you know of any other world leader who goes around the world apologizing for his country?

This is very odd, and with the exception of the erstwhile president, Jimmy Carter, unprecedented, at least in my memory. Carter is simply a buffoon, and no one takes him seriously. He wields no power at all, so whatever he says is simply an embarrassment.

It is odder that you should not be aware of the self-apologetic nature of German chancellorship. A hearty apology for the ongoing existence of Germany on the face of this earth every now and then is a prerequisite to ascend to that position. It thus usually pains us levelheaded Germans to see the current leader of the USA bend over backwards in front of crooked dictators on any occasion.

The Tea Party has shown that the people are indeed thinking. It seems they can see through the lies and slander which I did not think possible. It has given Nixon's 'silent majority' a voice at last. If only he were here to see it.

I believe that the essense of the Tea Party is resistance. If I am right, it could be the beginning of the end to the whole liberal enterprise including political correctness. And if it is a true resistance movement, more liberal outrages will only make it stronger. I am hopeful.

The new breed of the Republicans in Congress will be different thanks to the Tea Party. They understand the dire straits the US is in, and will drastically reverse course. They understand where the Republican Party failed between 2000 and 2006. If the old guard of the Republicans doesn’t follow the new line, the voters will wipe them out in 2012. If the new breed doesn’t act as promised they will be taken out in 2012 too. Understand that the Tea Party is not over. All representatives will be watched constantly very closely. The pressure will stay on.

Spending is the focal point of the Tea Party. Americans want the spending to be cut drastically. It will be very difficult but it must be done. Complete Departments will have to be closed (candidates: Department of Education, Energy, Environmental Protection). Entire Government programs will have to be abolished. The number of civil servants must be cut drastically. Their pay-package must be slashed significantly. The spending must go down by at least 20%, and it must happen very fast. Americans are scared about the future! They are ready for some serious action.

Today, the working population, including the poor, are taxed to pay for civil ‘servants’ who retire in their early 50’s, and who are paid on average (including benefits) double as much as the average worker in the private sector. This situation has worsened during the short period Obama and his union-friends are in power.

to the Fool's Paradise which we have created for ourselves.

Yes, the sun on Kappert Isle is intense this time of year, but why not simply make every single human being on the planet, even Kappert, (if confirmed by the DNA test), a US citizen. The fees and taxes we could charge would be phenomenal, the fact that they would be uncollectable as a practical matter would be irrelevant, the uncollected revenue would simply be entered on account receivables and outsourced for collection.

Imagine what we could do with that outsourcing to spread the misery of being a US taxpayer to the rest of the world. Just think of it, you are  just your average Imam in the ME coming home from a day at the mosque after instructing the faithful how to drive their vehicles into the nearest Western embassy/school and lo and behold on the other end of a phone call from some call center in Waziristan is Osama bin laden himself: "Allah akbar brother, when can we expect payment for your US I-666?"

@ mpresley

1) Obama has only continued Bush's foreign policy to the extent that circumstances have forced him to do so.  In Iraq he has simply continued the 'drawdown' that logically followed the success of Bush's 'surge policy' of 2007. But, America's enemies in Irak know that Obama will 'run' - in contrast with Bush - if the political 'consolidation' does not succeed in the end, and that fact in itself will make that political consolidation less likely and ultimate failure more likely.  In Afghanistan, it should be clear that another 'Vietnam scenario' is unfolding in view of disbelief (in China, Pakistan, and the muslim world) in Obama's willpower to 'win' (which means putting the enemies of the West's manifest enemies in effective power). The rest of Obama's perverse foreign policy can be summed up as follows: punish your proven friends and comfort your proven enemies (including the UN).

2) We agree that Bush was no fiscal conservative, but there are differences of degree...and we wil never know how he would have proceeded further with respect to 'bailouts'. I suspect that, at least, Bush would have resisted the Pelosi/Reid fiscal absurdities, as opposed to Obama who jumped on that particular bandwagon to economic stagnation.

3) As to gold, the current speculative bubble is not much different from what happened in the 1970's after several "oil shocks", and I trust that it will subside again after confidence will be regained. You cannot run modern economies on a 'gold standard', just like you cannot replace modern medicine again by alchemy and witchcraft.

4) I am less pessimistic than you about the near future. The current unsustainable fiscal policies wil be reversed, and the American people and their institutions will make the necessary 'corrections'. They have done so many times before, and will do so again. Frankly, in that particular respect, 'history' can and should comfort us.

@ ampman

1)  In a narrow sense you are right.  Obama promised a radical transformation of America, and he has been delivering on that particular promise as measured by (a) a massive increase in the annual federal budget deficit to double digit numbers (in relation to GDP) and (b) a near doubling of the total existing public debt.  All this in less than two years!!...with nothing to show for it, because unemployment is significantly higher than before his misnamed 'stimulus programs' and public investment is lower than ever. Public consumption, by contrast, has been exploding and correspondingly the size of government has increased by 5 percentage points in relation to GDP. If he had spent his trillion dollars on building 50 nuclear power plants and/or an extensive rapid rail system, there would have been something to show for it. But as it is, he has spent virtually all of it on nonproductive subsidies to consumption by 'favorite groups', so there is nothing of real lasting value to show for it!

America's current fiscal policy is worse than Greece's and on a par with that of a typical irresponsible third world government. The negative impact of these fiscal developments on the USA's income growth may take perhaps half a generation to 'undo', and we are in for an extended period of stagnation and perhaps even of stagflation (like the 1970's).

2) However, I think that you misunderstand the author's reference to unkept "promises". These relate more to foreign and security policies, and particularly to his (unkept) promise to be a post-partisan or non-partisan President. Obama has been the most partisan President in living memory, and his ultimate economic record may well turn out to be worse than Jimmy Carter's.

3) As to Obama's feckless foreign policy, it has even been worse than that of George W Bush. Do you know of any other world leader who goes around the world apologising for his country? The French President? The Chinese one? The Japanese or Indian Prime Ministers? The Russian President or the Saudi King, etc...? The consequences of all this (for the enemies of freedom in the world - and they are plentiful - do not fear this American President) will be seen by all...even before Obama's term will come to an end - as it must - in 1012.

4) It is true that the income distribution has worsened in recent times, largely because of dramatic failures of the leftist education establishment in the context of rapid technological advances and more trade competition on a global scale. The irresponsible fiscal policy of GWBush could do nothing about lessening the problem of a worsening income distribution, and neither can Obama's policies of subsidising unproductive activities and foolish consumption. Obama's 'harvest' will be: the same or worse income distribution BUT coupled with many more poor people (in absolute number).

5) Recent failures of the Republican party establishment, and the consequent rise of the 'tea party', have already been dealt with by someone else here. But, your last sentence is truly nonsensical. Bush's last (and worst) fiscal deficit was less than half that of Obama last year and again this year.

A nation cannot advance, neither culturally nor economically, with your (and Obama's) language of 'class warfare'.

Ampman, responding to Fincioen, writes: “I doubt the American majority, who are mostly below the median in term[s] of income, would be stupid enough to vote Republican again. If they did, they’d deserve what they would get: more tax cut[s] for the rich and more deficit[s].”

I am a pessimist. Human nature and the tenor of the times make pessimism the best policy. Nevertheless, the forthcoming off-year election strikes me as sui generis. I notice that the opposition to the Obama regime is less GOP than it is “Tea Party,” and that “Tea Party” implies (perhaps with less focus than idealists want) something other than the usual, historical outcome of a mere GOP House-and-Senate sweep. Supposing that the sweep occurs, voters will have to keep haranguing their new representatives, of course. Insofar then as “voting Republican” will mean something different, for once, from what it has meant since Bush I, I would challenge Ampman’s statement that an anti-Obama outcome on 2 November will mean “more tax cut[s] for the rich and more deficit[s].” The “Tea Party” voters are not “rich people.” They’re salary earners, hurt badly by the socialist reconstruction of the economy. They want and deserve tax cuts for themselves – and for everybody – just as they want a diminution of government and a restriction of government spending. Naturally “everybody” will include “the rich,” however Ampman defines such people, as it must in any fair system of taxation. One might pose to Ampman: For whom should American voters who oppose socialism vote? Should they not vote? What effect would that have? I expect that the outcome of 2 November will constitute a rebuke both to the Obama regime and to the GOP establishment. I do not foresee utopia, but I do see right now a clarification of issues unique in my voting lifetime.

I have one further question for Ampman: If everyone’s taxes go down, would it bother him that the wealthy shared in the general disburdenment?

Never before succeeded a President in driving his own party into ruin in such a short time.

As I recall, it did not take Jimmy Carter too much time to tank future Democrat prospects. But, in the context of the time, BHO makes Mr. Carter look rather like a piker.

His arrogance in forcing his socialist worldview upon the American people, against their will...

Let's not forget that the president is not elected inside a vacuum, or by fiat. Mr. Obama's views are in fact shared by many Americans. As the country becomes more and more Third World in outlook via non-European immigration, and considering the political experience of most Third World countries, he may even appear "moderate" to the new electorate.

How do you keep defending the +one trillion big stimulus-package, now that it is clear for everybody it didn’t help the economy nor the common person?

I only want to point out that the the younger Bush began the bail-outs: consider the policies of Bernake (still around) and Paulson (current gig at Johns Hopkins).

"Obama’s statements during his 2008 campaign, now recognized as blatant lies".

 That's an assertion.  Politicians make many promises, often undelivered, but are they "blatant" lies?  Obama, like most politicians, has visions of their ideal world.  Delivery on those promises doesn't depend solely on him but on what kind of budget Congress votes for.

We've seen more empty pledges from the Republicans, with actual resulting  obscene more huge income gap between the rich and the poor. I doubt the American majority, who are mostly below the median in term of income, would be stupid enough to vote republican again.  If they did, they'd deserve what they would get: more tax cut for the rich and more deficit.