all you did jeff was speak the truth ma

Would a republican president had all the road blocks thrown at him by a congress that was determined to see him fail no matter what happened to the country? It's easy to sit in the cheap seats and write articles saying nothing was done so the president failed. How much did congress have to do with him failing and will Romney be any better? Romney would not have be reelected governor 5 years ago if he ran for reelection and now hecould be president hope he doesn't do to the country what he did to this state.

Come on Jeff, you know, it's ideology, nothing else matters. This administration is the 'Least Transparent' in fifty years, and has the Laziest Senate in thirty years. president Obama doesn't need other branches of government. Now a report comes out on friday, "we now spend ONE TRILLION DOLLARS a year on entitlements, not including SS and Medicare. Another 4 years, another 4 trillion added to our debt, your choice.

I am absolutely amazed that the president has the level of support the polls seem to indicate. His job record is an embarrassment to the entire country. I am unswayed by the excuses that George Bush left him a mess or that Congress has been less than cooperative. It is the president's responsibility to get the job done in spite of difficulties and obstacles. In the private sector he would have been 'let go' a couple years ago.

"If a Republican president compiled such an atrocious record, you would do everything you could to prevent his reelection. Can you vote in good conscience for a Democrat with such a record?"

Easy.  The opposing candidate is promising us he'll be ten times worse.

Lindsey Graham said "there are not enough angry white guys to sustain the GOP". Never has anyone so perfectly and suucinctly described the makeup of a political party and what it is all about. You guys are just plain backward Jeff; scared, backward, religious white guys, who long for a simple time in the past that really never existed.

By all means, if you value transparency in government, vote for the guy who won't even show his taxes.

Here's the situation we've gotten ourselves into: Republican politics has become, "Screw this country, even if what he's proposing is in our country's best interest we've got to be against it because Obama is *for* it." This was the same policy Hitler had (who, by the way, was also racist): 'Even if it destroys Germany, following my will is the only option.'  The Republicans spent four years following Hitlerian tactics, of defeating Obama at all costs. Having largely succeeded in making American government dysfunctional, the Republican strategy is now to push the blame on Obama. This infantile form of leadership has led to a significant proportion of the country buying into this kind of behavior, of regarding it as being acceptable. But in the end this scorched earth strategy of the Republicans has sown the seeds of its own destruction, because even if Romney wins a very significant proportion of this country will scream revenge, it will do everything it can to destroy Romney, at all costs. Republicans may have won the battle, but it will lose the war.

So Jeff is arguing that Obama is a Republican in Democratic clothing.  I guess Jeff will be voting for Obama.  Fascinating.  Probably the most pro-Obama piece Jeff ever wrote.  He's created an Obama that is a cross between Richard Nixon and Bush II a conservatives delight.

So Jeff, since Obama will win re-election, you can at least take solace in the fact that he's not really a liberal. In fact, Obama has actually run pretty much to the right of President Reagan the entire first four years of his presidency. As for me, yeah Obama has been a huge disappointment but only a moron would think the obvious alternative would be to vote for Romney because Obama wasn't liberal enough. Or are you telling liberals to stay home on election day? I'm not about to drop out of the process. Nice try.

Laughably slanted piece. "If a Republican president compiled such an atrocious record, you would do everything you could to prevent his reelection. Can you vote in good conscience for a Democrat with such a record?" Answer: Yes, and I would not vote for a Republican because the legacy of Lee Atwater is a party deep in the thrall of its most extreme right wing elements, who, if given the chance under a GOP president, would turn back the clock on the civil rights of women and minorities, and likely appoint SC Justices that would serve the interests of the the rich and powerful at the expense of the vast majority of American people.

LMAO.

Just reading the headline, I knew this would cause the Moonbats and Obamabots to start foaming at the mouth and fire up their keyboards to try and refute what is obviously so true!

Well done Jeff.

Of course people will support President Obama again.  Who wants a neo-conservatieve, Heritage Foundation's favorite as President.  It is fair enough to point out President Obama's shortcomings but the other choice will engage us in another disasterous war.  This President thinks before he acts.  Romney's last debate performance shows he is no cautious leader, in fact the opposite.  No thanks.

We have witnessed Chicago-style ward politics in the White House since 2008, not hope and change. Mitt Romney has signaled that he wants to work with Democrats to solve serious problems if elected. It's time to admit that Barack Obama has been a failure in providing presidential leadership.

Obama accomplished many things in his four years, despite astonishing Republican intransigence. He staved off potential widespread bank failure, presided over a rising stock market, addressed out of control health care costs, bailed out Detroit, executed Bin Laden, improved foreign relations. The GOP's answer to all these problems, and more, was no answer at all. Now, Jeff is trying to slam him for not eradicating Jeff's desired policies.

Gee, all I can think of in rebuttal is, "Mission Accomplished".

The truth is that all the blather about Bush's policies were not rooted in constitutional concerns, it was about political opportunism.  The shocking part of Obama's ascendency is that he never seemed to be rooting for America.  He dismissed all of Bush's successes in keeping us safe after 9-11, and seemed to want him taken away in hand cuffs the daay he was inaugurated.  A classier president would have stood shoulder to shoulder with his predecessor, and promised the world that he would continue the policies that Bush conducted.

NEW PARAGRAPH:  But no, he travelled the Globe apologizing for US "torture" and Gitmo.  But, as many of us predicted, once it was in his political interest to keep the country safe, he not only continued the Bush policies, but went further.  He does not torture terrorists, he simply orders their execution.  The down side to this is that we are no longer gathering intelligence by capturing terrorists.  Dead men do not talk.

NEW PARAGRAPH:  His shameful slander of a president of this country was unprecedented, as was his attempt to be elected with it.  But his hypocrisy should not surprise anybody.

Excellent article, Jeff.

Don’t forget Obama promised all U.S. foreign policy would be accomplished multi-laterally with our Allies, respect the sovereignty of other nations, and in accordance with all U.S. law.  So let’s examine his signature foreign policy achievement, the killing of Osama bin Laden.  This was done as a unilateral action, which violated the sovereignty of another nation, and executed outside the guidelines of Title 10 U.S. Code (the Goldwater-Nichols Act specifically).  Have we heard any complaints about this yet?

Note that none of those objecting to Jeff's pointing out the "inconvenient truth" of Obama's policies directly contradicting his oft stated goals can refute the hypocrisy of Obama's actions. These civil liberty issues, issues which have been pounded into our head's whenever a Republican holds office as impeachable offenses by liberals are now completely ignored by liberals. So were liberals lying about their concerns with such "constitutional" violations under Bush? What other conclusion can one draw? Like the, very well documented, abuse and debasement of women by Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, liberals seem to fall silent, deaf and dumb when their icons violate values that, among Republicans, that they would DEMAND expulsion from the political world. What does it say about a political perspective where the leaders routine violate the most preciouos values of the philosophy yet remain celebrated idols of the movement? 

If Romney wins the presidency, in four years some Democrat-leaning journalist will write a piece like this about promises he made and didn't keep. It has happened with all past presidents and it will happen with all future presidents. Picture a two-pan balance scale. Choosing -or not- an incumbent president amounts to visualizing if accomplishment outweigh failures or vice-versa. But in reality nothing of that counts. Voting is mainly an irrational act in which deep-seated emotions -largely unconscious- rule. I'm sure that Mr. Jacoby knows that and is using what appears to be an intellectual argument to justify his own biases -that of course we all have. 

Jacoby doesn't want to acknowledge that large numbers of moderates support Obama, not just "passionate and dedicated" liberals. Jacoby is whining because it's clear that the extremist Republicans he represents have suffered defeat after defeat at Obama's hands in the past four years: Obamacare (and the Supreme Court ruling supporting it), gays in the military, withdrawal of forces from Iraq, killing of bin Ladin and destruction of al-Qaida leadership, appointment of a liberal to the Supreme Court, a much improved (and improving) economy, and much more, along with tremendous overall success in cleaning up after the failed Bush presidency.

Ralph Reed (watching him now with George S. on ABC)....whew...guys like this, Sanctorum, Bachmann, Aken, Gingrich, Robertson, Perry, West, etc. whispering in Romney's ear to wipe out Iran, because it is the headquarters of Islam, the competing fairytale/mythology against Christianity. Their rationale is that God has given them "the bomb" first to be used in the name of Jesus Christ. God help us all if these lunatics get into power!!!

Amen.

Fianlly, civility within the walls of the Globe. Very well stated and true through and through. Without the blastfamy of the left screaming untruths instead of addressing each statement. Instead of attaching Jacoby for addressing the issues, how about addressing each issue and make a statement-not a condimnation of the writer. Nice article, Mr. Jacoby. Thank you for stating a truthful comparison.

Why is this page not recording "like" or "dislikes?"

"If a Republican president compiled such an atrocious record, you would do everything you could to prevent his reelection. Can you vote in good conscience for a Democrat with such a record?" While you made some good points in your first three paragraphs Jeff, the answer to your question is simple. Given who the candidate running against the Democrat is and that candidate's well-established track record, the answer to your question is an unequivocal yes.

we ll said and pretty hard to defend

Unemployment going down, 5.5 MILLION new jobs, Dow up 60%, Bin Laden eliminated.

Thank you Mr. President.

Could a Democratic president be so ineffective, maintaining an economic malaise and be so incompetent on foreign policy that a right leaning Republican could succeed him?  Could that Republican spur economic recovery and show much greater understanding of foreign relations?  Has it ever happened?  Oh yah, the Carter to Reagan transistion.  All that remains is for historians to decide whether to place Obama above or below Carter in the bad president rankings.  The only Carteresque piece Obama is missing is an embarassing brother named Billy.  But Biden is an excellent substitution.

Obama's performance, which I consider to be satisfactory, reflects the reality of being president vs. being a candidate.

"Liberal", per Merriam Webster: "5 : broad-minded; especially: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms."

But is that what a political liberal does these days? What I see is a determination to make "progress", especially socially. That seems to always involve finding a group that for some reason has been discriminated against in the past, and to provided added "support" to that group via reverse discrimination. Often the discrimination was at core way in the past and whether it is still happening is questionable. So that becomes the orthodoxy, the politically correct set of beliefs. But, again, they are not derived from current reality (meaning contemporanious society) but from past problems. And the solution has little to do with an individual PERSON. You are providing assistance en mass to a GROUP -- the good, the bad, and the ugly (which all groups have). It's really parochialism, which Webster has as: "3: confined or restricted as if within the borders of a parish : limited in range or scope (as to a narrow area or region) : provincial, narrow" -- in short, the OPPOSITE of liberalism. What is "intervention" if not authoritarianism, but in the name of "doing good"?

The problem with this kind of modern political liberalism is that it short circuits individual freedom, believes in intervention (is controlling), ignores reality for lessons finally learned from the past that are now out of date (and may even be wrong), and fundamentally believes in a "village" with the options of experts selected by the villagers (so, therefore, conventional thinkng). And it often creates NEW damage and discrimination in the name of making everyone the same. For instance, what of the male wrestler who is not able to be on a team because it was replaced by a female sports team for which almost no women have interest? What of the "equal pay" given given to the female employee who leaves at 4:00 every day to "take care of the kids" while the male employee is there until well into the evening? What of the "free contraception" given to women, but no free condoms for men? What of the "special admissions" to colleges and graduate schools because the candidate is female, or black, or hispanic? What of providing in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens?

By the way, do not think for a moment that I think any better of "conservatism" these days.

So we should not elect Obama again and elect a republican becasue his filed policies are more republican than liberal. Excuse me while my mind unravels trying to digest that pretzel of logic.

For the first time ever, I think, I don't disagree with you, Jeff.  However....the alternatives? Voting for Romney? Not voting at all?  Not going to happen with this liberal....

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_blind_eye_to_illegal_donors_8SWotytr1RvbhyDCRyyrEL

The extent of the left's retort is "the other guy is worse." That is hardly a ringing endorsement for the current President.

Going after terrorists with drones and infinite detection at Guantanamo is not representative of American values of democracy, the right of the individual, fairness, justice, and freedom, and non-intervention into other countries. On the other hand, when their security is threatened the American people revert to what will protect them. I don't think the American people are courageous enough to suffer terrorist killings and destruction in the name of American values. Americans long ago were seduced by materialism, thrills, ease, and a mix of true and false rhetoric to justify it and make it look patriotic.

So, I think Obama is doing the only things that is politically possible (ie, it's realpolitik). Mr. Romney, I believe, would do little that's different, and be more likely to get us into wars that were not completely necessary.

If American were more courageous we would be able to try alleged terrorists on US soil in courts of law and to allow them full use of defense council.

I am still very happy with the progress he has made. And the GOP is doing everything it can to prevent his re-election. 

For the first time ever, I agree with you, but voting for the GOP is going to make it worse.

Barak Obama has repeatedly failed to present America with a clear vision for the future. We've had enough of this President's stale rhetoric, canned excuses, and rehearsed talking points.

The President broke his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, and not just by a little bit. He has racked up more than $5.5 trillion in new debt over the last four years, raising our national debt to over $16 trillion.

The choice is clear. Mitt Romney is offering a real plan for a real recovery; we can't afford four more years of fiscal freewheeling and historic levels of debt. Send Obama packing, back to Chicago, no more Washington grid-lock..

This is a rather lazy and comical attempt at voter suppression, but what really stands out is that it is almost a point for point rebuttal of every criticism Romney has made of Obama's foreign policy, the day before the foreign policy debate. So, good timing on that one.

Why is it again the right hates Obama so much ? He's done exactly what their Republican candidate would have done.

Jeff, I don't think you are correct and on balance, Romney is a terrible choice to lead a business, lead a state or lead the Olympics.  He is a particularly distasteful alternative when viewed as a choice for President of the United States.  Two links; one by Mike Taibbi in Rolling Stone that has yet to be refuted after months:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

The other in Newsweek, by David Stockman, Republican President Reagan's Budget Director during the Reagan Presidency:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html

I hope undecided voters take the time to read both before they make up their minds.

Of course I have had my disappointments. I've always had disappointments with any politician I've voted for. The biggest disappointment of my life was Richard Nixon and his "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. On the other hand, a lot has been accomplished too. Obama Care alone is a major legacy. But is Jacoby suggesting that because I didn't get everything my way that I should refrain from voting? Or is he suggesting the I vote for some who is opposed to much of what I think a government should be about? In either case, Jacoby is suffering from brain atrophy brought on by his failure of many years to use it. His columns are an embarrassment.

He's achieved more than any President since FDR, despite entering the office to the most economic devastation (both in the US and around the world) since the great depression, a Supreme Court that is the most socially conservative and anti-prescedent in the history of America, and Republican Congressional leadership who have made their first goal, during a time of war and economic turmoil created on their watch, that he be as unsuccessful as possible without care for how harmful that is to the success of our country. The fact that he accomplished so much in the face of such adversity makes him a progressive hero. 

Even if I was disappointed in Obama, what exactly are you giving me as an alternative?  You think I'd rather vote for the party that is anti-science and pro-Christian theocracy?  The party that still believes in trickle-down economics?  The party that thinks massive military spending is better than entitlement spending?  Sorry, but even if Obama was the worst President ever, which no one except hardcore Republicans actually thinks, there's certainly no better choice for someone like myself with progressive values.  Mitt Romney is certainly not for me.  Obama's got my vote.  Elizabeth Warren, too.