I thought it interesting that the Prince asked Nicki; "Is it better to be loved or to be feared?"

Today Andy Stern made the comment that 'no one fears Obama anymore'.

Hmmmmmmm.............

HEY G
Thanks for chiming in. There's something very legitimate in the view that Obama has lost hand. The authority figure he wished to be in 2008-2009 is a mere foggy reflection of his present image. He comes off whiny and pathetic. Machiavelli would consider him a failure, in the sense that his reign does not exemplify the hearty aggressiveness his constituents expect.

Granted, I find his shortcomings rather sad and beneath the potency of his office.

When in doubt, make a speech with no teeth or commitment.

The whole "break your promise" thing is without merit. In fact, Obama is living proof that promises unkept will seal any idealist's doom.

Now the question might be: Did he KEEP too many, or not ENOUGH.

"Now the question might be: Did he KEEP too many, or not ENOUGH."

Up to now, the Kool Aid drinkers were making excuses for every flip-flop. Now, not so much. Still, you have the 30% who still claim "It's all Bush's fault!"

The guy is a great salesman. He's just poor in delivery. Until now, he got away with it. Which must puzzle the hell out of "the most intelligent man in the world". Why isn't his glib tongue working any more?

HEY G

GLIB: thoughtlessly, sufficiently fluent.

His "glib tongue" has been working....OVERTIME!

Slickness is a POOR substitute for integrity.

People know a paper tiger when they hear one.

Niccolo Machiavelli also said: "When neither their property nor honor is touched, the majority of men live content, and [the prince] has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways"

Looks like Obama has violated both of Nic's stated terms: the threatened loss of property (via taxation and class warfare), and the impugning of American honor (in more ways than I can succinctly state here) may have finally stirred all but the most die-hard of Kool Aid drinkers.

I can't add much to the line of thought here - everyone's got it spot on.

Shallowness, hubris, incompetence and weakness were exposed through the crucible and fire of reality. We were promised gold, instead we got iron pyrite.

This is what happens when the press fails to do even a cursory vetting and scrutiny of a Presidential candidate.

Ditto everybody on the empty suit.

RE: "It's all Bush's fault!"

NO, IT ISN'T--& any thinking person who bothers to inform himself/herself will realize it.

Obama may be toxic, but he is only one man-child.

As for the debt, 99.9999% of the blame falls on Congress (where all spending legislation originates), & the simple fact is that $3 trillion of the debt--half of it--was incurred during Bush's last 2 years as president with Democrat control of both the House & Senate.

Two & half years of Democrat control of the legislative & executive branches has added +$4.5 trillion.

+$7.5 trillion of our total debt has been accumulated under the last four & half years of Democrat legislative control.

Not to defend W on economic matters--he is a Rockefeller Republican.

The Republicans under Bush from 2001 through 2006 certainly deserve to have their grapes crushed for their fiscal irresponsibility, but the damage Democrats have done since was unthinkable to me.

“It is the mark of our whole modern history that the masses are kept quiet with a fight. They are kept quiet by the fight because it is a sham-fight; thus most of us know by this time that the Party System has been popular only in the sense that a football match is popular.” – G. K. Chesterton

TO CLARIFY:

I should have written that--OF THE DEBT INCURRED UNDER BUSH--half of it--$3 trillion--was incurred in the last two years of his presidency when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.