No Mick Jagger

It was 10 months ago that Obama was sworn into office, billed as the best thing to happen to the U.S. since Jack Kennedy. Hope, Charm, Vitality - a fresh approach to governing - were all promised.
That night began to reveal an unfortunate truth: having reached a pinnacle on the day he was elected, Obama's popularity and relationship with the American people had nowhere to go but down. That's a difficult adjustment to make, and is reminiscent of the apocryphal story about the obsessed fan and her friends who worshipped and followed the Rolling Stones. One night, the fan finally got to spend the evening with Mick Jagger. After she emerged from the hotel the next morning, her friends asked her how it went. "Well," she said, "he was alright. But he's no Mick Jagger."
Now, the Obama dream is over, as America realizes that the President is, alas, no Barack Obama.
President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs, according to top aides involved in the planning.
His presidency has been hobbled by an overreach of historic proportion.  With most of his first year in office devoted to pursuit of the Public Option, aka Single Payer, aka Socialized Medicine - the president's political capital has been spent. The White House is now preparing for a year of damage control.
Obama has spent more money on new programs in nine months than Bill Clinton did in eight years, pushing the annual deficit to $1.4 trillion. This leaves little room for big spending initiatives.
Had he sought health care reform based on trying to fix the problems that everyone can agree on, he might have gotten it passed over the summer. He could have been moved on to other of his Bolshevik dreams - immigration reform, cap and trade, even card check, the most destructive proposal of all.
“Democrats have to reassure voters we are not being reckless,” said a Democratic official involved in the planning. “The White House knows this and that's why we'll be hearing a lot about reducing the deficit early next year. Democrats owned this issue for the past four years and cannot afford to cede it to Republicans now."
How quickly things have changed. From Kennedy to Carter in 10 months, the Obama Presidency will spend next year trying to minimize just how badly Democrats will be crushed in next November's mid-term elections so that he can better enjoy his last two years in office. Will he even dare to propose anything on his wish list next year?
Democratic lobbyist Steve Elmendorf says the White House focus on deficit reduction could easily kill the cap-and-trade effort. “I think this means cap-and-trade has to go to the backburner,” he said.
The potential damage done, however, goes much deeper than to just Obama. We know that liberalism is a minority belief system in the country - recent Gallup numbers reveal that just 20% of voters self-identify as liberal, half as many as those who call themselves conservative. Yet, liberals are running the government.
Put simply, Obama has misread his mandate. Perhaps he thought he was elevated to pass health care - they loved it in Iowa! - but in fact it was the economic crisis that got him elected, is now our national preoccupation, and will be the solution of which (or lack of one) that determines whether he's re-elected.
How do Democrats win elections? Because voters are under the mistaken belief that this is Jack Kennedy's party - sharing traditional American values. With liberals in full control of the government there can be no mistaking reality - in poll after poll, we see ony Democrats supporting the President, with independents joining Republicans in their opposition.
Now that we, as a nation, have awakened from our post-election, post-racial dream state, we've begun to notice that our president may not be much interested in being a chief "executive," given that he's never run anything before or expressed the slightest inclination to do so. He has big ideas, to be sure, but that's only a small part of the job. The hard, nitty-gritty labor of figuring out how government can actually work better - the operative word is "governing" - seems to hold no appeal for him.
Americans have been made nervous by Obama. All the pretending about not knowing Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers, about not really believing in redistributive policies, about attacking the undo influence of special interests over our government, just don't wash anymore.
Obama seems to have forgotten all the stuff he proclaimed in the campaign about a new type of non-divisive presidency, even though that promise of bipartisanship was the facet of his candidacy that appealed the most to independents. Of course, the Republicans have made bipartisanship difficult. But he was the one in the campaign who claimed he could deal in a new way with those across the aisle - in contrast with his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, who once called that opposition "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
The nation now has a chance to link Democrats to their true legacy - to the destruction of our cities, institutional racism, bad education, to crippling debt caused by unaffordable social programs, to a partnership with unions that has crushed municipalities and states, not to mention the sadistic strangling of GM and Chrysler.
More Americans now say it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government’s responsibility.
Many people have wondered aloud if the country will ever recover from the socialism that Obama will usher in. Thanks to his own mistakes, his ability to affect that destructive influence, beyond health care, has been minimized. The question now is - Will his party ever recover from Obama?