With Ron Paul saying we’re “all Austrians now”, I was reminded of Howard Dean’s “scream” from eight years ago:

Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we’re going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we’re going to California and Texas and New York … And we’re going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we’re going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeah!

I prefer the following parody version more:

And you know something? You know something? Not only are we going to Space Mountain, we’re going to the tea cups and Mr. Toads Wild Ride and the Pirates of the Carribbean and the Jungle Adventure and the Matterhorn! We’re going to the Haunted Mansion and Main Street and It’s a Small World! And we’re going to the Tiki Room and the Country Bear Jamboree and the Luau and a character breakfast! And then we’re going to the Electric Light Parade. To take back Cinderella’s Castle! YEEEAAARGH!!

I haven’t seen my Twitter feed in a few minutes, but last I saw it was a two-way toss up between Santorum and Romney.

Update 10:40CT: Still a toss up between Santorum and Romney, Paul in third according to the CNN front page.

Another update: Lest someone thinks I’m being flippant about the Iowa Caucuses by putting that silly quote above, I am. Nevertheless, they are important, as Steven Taylor details here. I still consider it a clown show, but this clown show is how we currently determine our president. My preferred method, which will never happen, is that we have six primary days with the first one in January and containing five states. After that, we have five primary days with nine states each in them spread through the end of May.

The purpose of having the first primary day with only five states is to diminish the fundraising advantage and hopefully make the primaries competitive.

Update 11:26CT: I was going to try to stay up and post who wins, but I’ll close with this tweet from Jamil Smith:

Are we really going to fall into the trap, again, of being wowed by the rise of a surging GOP candidate who hadn’t been under the spotlight?

As far as I’m concerned, that says it all. This is Romney’s nomination to lose and if by some miracle Santorum gets it, he’ll be crushed by Obama because he’s too far outside the mainstream.

Update 11:40CT: I couldn’t resist one last update: at this moment Santorum leads by FIVE votes. What a nightmare.

• The Physics of Star Trek: This book is perfect for people who aren’t well versed in physics, but need a reference point, such as Star Trek, to make it understandable. Numerous fascinating little nuggets, like the possibility that our universe could be a black hole in some larger universe.
• 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, Oxycontin®, and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania: The title from this book comes from the fact that the Dover trial lasted 40 days and nights. It’s pretty much a blow by blow account of what went on in the trial and stays good until the last chapter, where it gets a little preachy. The author is Darwin’s grandson.

I recommend these and would love discussion in the comments on other peoples’ thoughts on them, as well as your recommendations.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has offered to enter negotiations with the Libyan rebels over the formation of a transitional government as loyalist fighters are pushed further to the outskirts of Tripoli and rebel forces prepare for an assault on the ousted dictator’s hometown of Sirte.

Moussa Ibrahim, regime spokesman, called the New York office of the Associated Press on Saturday night and said Gaddafi wanted his son Al-Saadi to lead talks with the National Transitional Council. Ibrahim, who was identified only by his voice, has proved one of the despot’s most loyal and vocal allies as the 42-year-old regime crumbles. He said he was still in Tripoli, while Gaddafi – whom the rebels and Nato are desperately trying to capture – remained in Libya.

The offer of negotiations for a transition were slapped down quickly by a senior NTC official, who said the rebels would not talk to Gaddafi unless he surrendered.

“No negotiation is taking place with Gaddafi,” said Ali Tarhouni, the rebel official in charge of oil and financial matters. He told Reuters: “If he wants to surrender, then we will negotiate and we will capture him.”

Make of this what you will.

So, we have a woman running for President who literally believes that her god made women to be the helpmeets of men, and that marriage should be built around women submitting to their husbands. And this belief, being weird—especially for someone who claims she wants to run the entire nation—was asked about during a debate.

And this is “sexist”?

No, it’s not. The belief she has is sexist. Asking a candidate about her sexist beliefs is well within bounds. If a politician were running and followed a religion that believed that people under 5’4″ were not fully human and should be routinely beat about the head by taller people, it wouldn’t be sizeist to make her explain that belief to people she expects to vote for her, either. She’s sizeist to believe that.

It’s pathetic that this is even being debated. Stop letting conservatives who pretend to have the sense of very small children run us around in circles like this. Please.

Well put.

UPDATE: I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

In the few hours since Boehner walked out of the negotiations (which my colleague Doug Mataconis covered here), I’ve been thinking about how I might have approached it if I were in Obama’s position. I’ve reached a conclusion: I never would have negotiated in the first place.

Let me start by saying that I don’t think now is a good time to be either raising taxes or cutting spending. Having said that, the Republicans entered these negotiations saying there would be no tax increases or cuts to defense spending. President Obama should have made it equally clear that there would be no cuts to entitlements and that, if there was to be any deal, it would have to include new revenue. He didn’t do that. He should have stated to the American people that there was no basis for negotiations, that the debt ceiling is merely a housekeeping procedure and that any increase had to originate with Congress and that they were not doing their jobs. He didn’t do that either.

For the life of me I can’t understand why he won’t get tough with these guys. He has to have known how unhinged they are and that, if it met their ideological agenda, they would create a new financial crisis. Knowing all of this, what could possibly be gained from talking to them? I realize Obama wants to be seen as reasonable, but his reasonableness has contributed to us getting to this point. He needs to get mad and explain, loudly, to the American people exactly what the consequences of a default are. To borrow a phrase from Sarah Palin, he needs to quit pussyfooting around with these guys.

So, aside from refusing to negotiate, what else would I have done? There are two options that I’m aware of: the 14th amendment option and another option where the Supreme Court ruled back in the 60s that the executive branch was obligated to spend money appropriated by Congress (I can’t remember the case, but perhaps a commenter can help me out).

On the 14th amendment option, I would have asked the Office of Legal Council (OLC) to start looking at the constitutionality of the debt ceiling and have them determine whether it was, in fact, constitutional. There’s a fairly good chance that it’s not. Also, from what I’ve read elsewhere, no one would actually have standing to sue so it’s unlikely that the courts would even get involved.

Failing that, I would look into the notion that by appropriating the money and failing to raise taxes enough to cover the appropriation, Congress has implicitly raised the debt ceiling. There are only three variables here: taxes, spending and borrowing. If I’m the president, I know I can’t raise taxes on my own and probably wouldn’t even begin to know how to go about it. As for spending, Congress has already ordered me to spend that money and has failed to provide the revenue to fund it. This leaves me with one option, to issue new debt, and I know how to do that. Treasury auctions off bonds all the time; it’s routine and easily accomplished.

If the courts did get involved and shot down either of the above options, I would make it clear that creditors get paid first and I would make it equally clear that when deciding which contractors and the like get paid, I would make it a point not to pay the ones in the congressional districts of the guys who were stopping the debt ceiling from getting raised.

There are risks from this approach. If the 14th amendment argument held up, or the courts chose not to get involved, I would expect the House Republicans to double down on stupid. In other words, they will try to impeach him. It would probably pass the House, but there’s no way the Senate would vote to convict.

Is this a risky strategy? To use another Palinism, you betcha. But, it beats being conciliatory with a bunch of thuggish idiots who are intent on destroying the economy.

Update: Apparently the case I was thinking of is Train v. City of New York. Thanks to Sam for the pointer.

I’ve been privately seething for months now as I’ve watched the House Republicans use the debt ceiling as a negotiating chip in their ideological agenda. It should be a no-brainer to raise it since it’s merely a housekeeping procedure. They obviously care nothing for the consequences of a default, and the fact that they are willing to risk this country’s spotless credit rating shows me that they are functionally insane. Whether they are actually insane is of no importance; they are behaving as if they are:

As the stalemate over debt talks dragged on Wednesday, Congress and the White House may have passed the point of no return in avoiding a U.S. government debt downgrade.

If Uncle Sam loses his coveted AAA rating, the cost of borrowing goes up, the economy slows further and jobs get even tougher to find.

[...]

The immediate impact of such a downgrade would be a jump in interest rates. Just as a consumer with a lower credit score has to pay higher interest rates on their credit card, a downgrade of the Treasury’s debt rating would raise the cost of borrowing. That would increase the nation’s interest payments on fresh debt, driving the government even deeper into deficit.

The prospect of higher interest rates isn’t just speculation. After Congress delayed raising the debt limit in 1979 and the Treasury then had technical problems, the U.S. missed interest payments on about $120 million of debt. Though the glitch caused only a brief delay, that technical default raised interest rates by more than half a percentage point.

A half point rise in interest rates may not sound like a lot. But in April, economists at JPMorgan estimated that would be enough to knock a full percentage point off gross domestic product, which has already slowed to a growth rate of less than 2 percent. With job growth already below the pace needed to create work for new entrants to the labor force, unemployment would begin rising again.

The loss of Uncle Sam’s AAA rating would hurt more than just the Treasury. Some state and local governments, already enduring their own painful budget cuts, would see borrowing costs rise. All three ratings agencies have warned that top ratings on billions of dollars of municipal debt secured by U.S. Treasuries could fall if the federal rating is cut. More than $130 billion in municipal debt is at risk of downgrade from AAA, Moody’s said last week.

Of all the people claiming that we’re borrowing too much — never mind the fact that holding fast on the debt ceiling and creating a default does nothing to reduce spending or increase revenues — none can explain why long term interest rates and yields are near lows of around 3%. If government borrowing is crowding out private investment, why aren’t the rates higher? I’m convinced that the Tea Party types know nothing of economics. They are advocating contractionary policies at every turn: they want spending cuts and are opposed to quantitative easing, even though inflation remains low. I don’t think these guys can even spell “liquidity trap”.

In addition to that a default will raise interest rates, but not in a good way. If rates went up due to economic growth, that would be one thing. It would mean in increase in the demand for loanable funds and that would indicate that the liquidity trap is over. What’s going to happen instead is that they are going to increase due to risk and in the process increase the deficit, not decrease it. Any cuts that are achieved might very well be dwarfed by increased borrowing costs.

I’ve been moving to the left for a few years now, but these idiots are radicalizing me. I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my life (full disclosure: I didn’t vote the last two elections due to moving), but I doubt I’ll ever vote for a Republican again. They’re either stupid or evil, but either way they’re dangerous and bad for the country.

I’ve been a reader of Cafe Hayek for many years and, in spite of having moved to the left in recent years, am fond of many of their ideas. However, this article by Russ Roberts is profoundly disturbing:

Is economics a science because it is like Darwinian biology? Darwinian biology is very different from the physical sciences. Like economics it is a very useful way to organize your thinking about complex phenomena. But it is not a predictive or very precise science or whatever you want to call it. Before seeing any direct fossil evidence, no biologist can tell you how long the giraffe’s neck was ten million years ago. They cannot make accurate backcasts of any precision such as the year that the forerunner of the giraffe began to lengthen its neck through natural selection. It cannot model why the giraffe’s neck isn’t longer. Darwinism, like much of economics, exploits tautological reasoning. If the fossil record is incomplete or shows no change or vast periods or the pace of change is inconsistent with the fossil record, the theory is not discarded but modified with the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Is punctuated equilibrium true? There is no real way of knowing. It is our best hypothesis given very limited data. Is it a science? Sure. But it is a science that is unlike physics. That’s OK. It is still a very useful way of organizing one’s thinking about evolution. And the “imperfection” of biology is fine unless you really want to know when the elephant got his trunk. Then you are in unscientific territory. It doesn’t matter whether our understanding of natural selection is imperfect or that we simply don’t have enough fossil data. Biologists understand the limits of their field. (Emphasis added)

This strikes me as a complete misunderstanding of science and, specifically, biology. To begin with, if biologists can’t predict a giraffe’s neck length, it is due to the fact that biology deals with incomplete information, as do all of the sciences. If they can’t predict a giraffe’s neck length, what they can do, if the evidence is available (meaning fossils), is predict when the change occurred. They can then lead teams to the appropriate geological layer and geologists can point them to areas where such layers are exposed. The teams can then begin to look for fossils to support the prediction. The fossils might not exist; the conditions for fossilization occur only rarely. Just because the fossil might not exist doesn’t in any way make the prediction wrong, it merely means it is unsupported at this time.

Likewise, evolution does not rely on tautological reasoning. Roberts’s reasoning on this is particularly bad. As an example he uses the fact that the theory of evolution is not discarded when biologists find something they don’t expect. This isn’t a weakness, this is science. As I said earlier, scientists are always dealing with incomplete information and this is particularly difficult in biology. Roberts also says that biology is a science unlike physics. Not at all. It is a science that uses the scientific method and studies the natural world. I can assure you that physicists have to revise their models in much the same way that biologists do. If the Large Hadron Collider fails to discover the Higgs Boson, does that mean that the universe will fly apart? No. Does it mean that the experiment wasn’t well designed enough to provide the information they needed? Maybe. It might also mean that it doesn’t exist. Should physicists abandon well established theories because of this? They might have to, or they might simply need to revise them. Why? Because, as with all scientists, they are dealing with incomplete information.

I should also add that, as with other scientific theories, evolution is indeed falsifiable. The reason this is so unlikely to happen is that it is supported by 150 years of research and evidence. Indeed, that could have happened with the discovery of DNA and the subsequent advances in genetics, but evolution was supported instead (see Ken Miller’s part in Judgment Day – Intelligent Design On Trial).

This whole discussion originated a couple of days ago on Twitter, on the issue of whether economics is a science. For my money the best take on it was by Ryan Avent with Matt Yglesias’s comments appended.

Via Joe Carter’s Google Reader feed

Midterm grades are tough, as one really never knows how things will finish out and so my predilection is to want to assign an incomplete, as that is really the only truly fair grade.

A main problem with any of these types of things is the question of the criteria to be used in the evaluation.  If one is an adherent of the Tea Party faction, one suspects that “Fs” would be in order.  Likewise, if one is a Green Party progressive, disappointment might render a similar grade, although for very different reasons (probably “Ds”).  I see no point in scoring based on ideological expectations, however (or even on the basis of what I, personally, wanted in terms of policy outcomes).

Further, in evaluating a given president there are issues of comparison to other presidents to consider (it is inherent in the grading, even if it not always explicit in the reasoning) as well as the prevailing conditions under which a president governs (for while being the President of the United States America is always a difficult job, sometimes it is harder than others).

Ultimately I think that grading a presidency is a combination of the following:  relative comparisons to other presidents, the specific challenge of the day, and understanding a president on his own terms (i.e., what did he say he was going to do and did he accomplish it)?

Ok, keeping in mind that A=excellent, B=above average, C=average, D=below average and F=failing,I would assign the following grades in the following categories:

Communication:   C+

By this I mean his ability to effectively communicate with the public regarding his political/policy goals.  If we were just grading things like the Tucson speech, the grade would be higher.  In many ways this is an incomplete, as I think he is still learning how to do this.

Domestic Policy: B-

This is hard to grade.  On the one hand, Obama was able to pass his signature goal, health care reform,   yet on the other, the economy remains hobbled and the unemployment rate hover just under 10%.   On yet another hand [this must be a mutant grader!---Ed.], we have avoided a second Great Depression and the Great Recession appears to have avoided a double dip.  On those later point, the issue is did the stimulus and various bailouts accomplish that feat?  (And some credit along those lines  also belongs to Bush, Paulson, Bernanke and company).

Foreign Policy:  C-

On balance, the Obama foreign policy has been the same as the Bush second term foreign policy.  I see no radical difference on Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, the War on Terror (or whatever we are calling it these days) or a host of other issues.  In general, US global relations are stable.  He loses points for not being especially different than his predecessor despite campaigning on change in this realm.

Legislative Success: A

Regardless of what thinks of the actual legislation in question, it is impossible to look at the legislation passed that Obama wanted passed and not give the man high marks:  the stimulus package, financial regulatory reform, the PPACA and the tax cut deal.  Anyone who has any kind of historical perspective regarding legislation has to score this one with high marks.

Update: It occurs to me that the DADT repeal needs to be in here as well, which will have long-term historical significance along with the ratification of New START.

Practical Politics: B/B-

This is linked to the communication issue above, but also to the legislative success.  On the one hand, there has been a lot of learning (as one might suspect) for a first term president, especially one with a short political resume to begin with.  However, while at times his political communication has faltered, the bottom line is that he has achieved a lot that he set out to achieve.  Further, the tax deal with the GOP showed that he can be pragmatic (and use that pragmatism to political gain).

I will leave it at that, and let my colleagues join in as they see fit.

James Joyner:

Communication:   C-

Obama is a first rate orator, on par with Reagan and Clinton — the two best American presidents in this area in my lifetime.   But, unlike those two, he’s not good at messaging and frequently hurts himself by sending mixed signals.

For example, on Afghanistan, he’s managed to simultaneously double down on the mission and undermine confidence in America’s commitment to it.  He spent months hemming and hawing about the surge and then undercut it with a July 2011 deadline.

Similarly, by not taking control early on the health care bill, a rather major achievement (albeit not in a direction I preferred) was received as a failure.

Domestic Policy: C

He’s gotten a lot done:  Healthcare reform, the stimulus, gays in the military, and other milestones.   But he did not lead well publicly on any of them, letting others carry the water.

The economy remains a disaster — indeed, it’s much worse than he warned it would be if we didn’t pass his stimulus package!  I don’t actually think this is his fault — it’s a global meltdown — but it’ll be how voters judge.

Foreign Policy:  C-

I’m in essential agreement with Steven on all fronts.  I’ll put up a longish post on this topic and link it here later this afternoon.  [As promised:  Obama's Mid-Term Report Card, foreign policy edition.]

Legislative Success: A-

Again, I basically agree with Steven.  I ding Obama, though, for failure to take charge early.  He succeeded by muddling through but presidents don’t get much credit for that.

Practical Politics: B

Ultimately, he’s done as well as can be expected.  He’s broken many of his campaign promises and quietly de-emphasized previous major goals upon seeing that the view looked different from the Oval Office than the campaign trail.  That doesn’t win him any points from either flank but it’s a shrewd way to govern.

Alex Knapp:

Communication:   B

I personally, largely agree with James and Steven. But I think that’s an inside baseball perspective. If Obama were really as bad as I think he’s been, he wouldn’t have an approval of over 50% at a time when the economy is still really, really terrible. So I’m thinking his communication skills must be stronger than I give him credit for. Which makes sense – folks like me who live and breathe politics are, thankfully, a fraction of a percentage of the population.

Domestic Policy: C

The good: Lily Ledbetter Pay Act, DADT, Financial Reform, most of the ACA, though I think it could have been much better if it weren’t such a conservative package.

The bad: kowtowing to Wall Street, the deficit increasing tax package “compromise” with Republicans, which resulted in a MORE expensive bill than either party was asking for, the stimulus package that was too long on tax cuts, too small on real and effective spending. Also, continuing the stupid Bush policy of having the Justice Department pursue “counterterrorism” by conducting elaborate sting operations against comically inept people who would pose no threat if left to themselves is another black mark against him.

Foreign Policy:  D+

Terrible in Iraq and Afghanistan, were he continues to fight wars with no defined objectives that we never should have started in the first place. Doubling down in Afghanistan, in particular was a mistake, though I’ll freely admit that’s in hindsight because I also thought it was a good idea in 2008. Despite “ending torture,” the CIA maintains its black sites in Bagram and elsewhere. The drone strikes into Pakistan are unconscionable, and he spent a considerable amount of capital into arranging “tough” sanctions on Iran that will go nowhere. Although in fairness, sanctions may forestall the even more insane policy of attacking Iran, so that might be a positive.

Legislative Success: A

Unlike James, I think it was a stroke of brilliance to let Congress lead the way on most of Obama’s signature legislation, all the while subtly manipulating them into doing what he wanted. The best way to manage egotists is to lead them to believe that they’re managing you. And you don’t get into Congress without a healthy dose of egotism.

Practical Politics: B+

Overall, Obama’s kept most of his promises, is actively working towards them, or got them as far as they could go in the current political climate. That ain’t bad.

Doug Mataconis:

Communication:   C-

Perhaps the most striking to me about the Obama Administration versus the Obama campaign for President has been the extent to which the same communications team that did such a great job during a hard-fought Primary and General Election campaign has done such a bad job since they’ve been in office. This was most in evidence during the health care debate, when the GOP and the conservative opposition was essentially able to take control of the talking points without much of a fight. Yes, the Administration ended up getting a health care package passed, but they lost the communications battle and ended up paying the price for that throughout the 2010 campaign season.

Part of the inevitable mid-term staff shuffle that has been going on since Rahm Emanuel left office appears to include a shake-up in the Communications Office. Robert Gibbs will be leaving, and the White House announced today that most political functions will be shifted out of the White House and into either the DNC or the Obama re-election campaign, which will be headquartered in Chicago.  Whether that solves the Administration’s communications problems remains to be seen.

Domestic Policy: C

With the exception of Card Check and Cap & Trade, virtually all of the major legislative agenda items that were part of the 2008 Obama campaign have been passed into law by Congress, albeit not always in the form (or manner) promised in 2008. As James notes above, though, Obama wasn’t much of a leader in getting any of his agenda items passed. Starting with the $700 Billion Omnibus Spending Bill that was passed in February 2009, the Obama White House had the habit of letting the Democratic leadership in Congress control the content and communication of everything from the Affordable Care Act (arguably the most significant piece of legislation of Obama’s Presidency even if he manages to win a second term). The result has been that the most important pieces of legislation of the past two years were associated with the unpopular Democratic Congress, rather than a relatively more popular Democratic President, and the President looked weak.

More importantly, though, the biggest domestic issue is the economy and the President’s economic policies have been less than helpful to say the very least. When Election Day 2012 comes, though, it will be the state of the economy that decides the President’s fate and, at the moment at least, it’s beginning to look like Barack Obama may turn out to be very lucky in that regard.

Foreign Policy:  D

I essentially agree with Steven here as well. I give the President a D here mostly because I think he is continuing to pursue a policy in Afghanistan that cannot work, and that he is not being honest with the American public about the fact that our strategy there isn’t working the way his advisers told him it would. We need to turn around and get out of there, soon, but with an election coming up in a year I doubt that’s going to happen.

Legislative Success: B+

As I noted above in the Domestic Policy section, Obama’s biggest problem has been the extent to which he ceded control of the legislative agenda early on to Congress, a decision he ought to great.

However, he did two things. First, he has gotten most of his legislative agenda through Congress. Second, during the lame duck session, he wisely (from a political point of view) compromised with Republicans over extension of the Bush tax cuts, thus allowing other items like the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and ratification of the START Treaty. Had that deal not been reached, the lame duck session would have likely been a waste of time.

Practical Politics: B

For the most part, President Obama has handled the practical politics of his position rather well. Evidence of that can be seen in the fact that he has manged to maintain relatively respectable job approval and favorable/unfavorable numbers even though polls show that the public disagreed with his position on policy issues. In fact, if the economy had been in better shape over the past two years, I would imagine that Barack Obama would be in  far better position than he is now.

As I wrote earlier today, there are signs that we may be witnessing a turnaround for Barack Obama, if that continues, it’s likely that the next two years are going to be far different from the past two for the White House.

Chris Lawrence:

I can’t say I disagree much with my colleagues, so my commentary will generally be brief.

Communication: B-

Obama is an effective communicator, in general, but sometimes he fails to make an effective case for his policies. How much of this is due to an often-muddled White House communications strategy, as opposed to Obama himself, is debatable. And, regardless, the public is no longer really buying his administration’s repeated attempts to pin all of Obama’s problems on his predecessor.

Domestic Policy: C-

Health care reform is generally the only “bright” spot on his record, and even that was arrived at by walking back campaign positions. While most of the individual elements poll as popular, the “if we pass it the public will like it” strategy hasn’t really come to pass in reality.

The rest of Obama’s 2009-10 domestic policy agenda is effectively DOA with the Republican House takeover, and there isn’t much sign yet of a new one to replace it. With the economy overshadowing everything else, even Democrats will have difficulty supporting major new spending initiatives, leaving Obama to try to fiddle at the margins through the regulatory process.

Foreign Policy: C+

The best that can be said for the Obama foreign policy agenda is that it hasn’t been as disastrous as the Bush foreign policy agenda. Then again, the second-term Bush foreign policy agenda wasn’t either, since realistically the “military option” to solve any problem has been off the table since mid-2004. On the plus side, we have managed to avoid Clintonian adventures that might not have worked out; intervention in Ivory Coast and/or Darfur would have potentially been palatable to Congress had Iraq gone swimmingly or not at all. On trade, the Obama administration has presided over the massive failure of the Doha round, alienated allies by refusing to push through free trade agreements, and only reluctantly acceding to our NAFTA obligations after an unnecessary, union-inspired spat over Mexican trucking based on bogus arguments about the safety of American-manufactured trucks being operated by experienced Mexican drivers on American roads.

The only reason the grade is as high as it is: institutionally he is constrained to failure on many key foreign policy issues. Israel has no interest in solving the Palestinian conflict in the current environment (where the Palestinians are internally divided and the Arab world has seemingly diminished its interest in their cause); Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons capabilities are going to come about regardless of American efforts to the contrary due to European, Russian, and Chinese sanctions-busting (and, regardless, are probably not the existential threats to American safety some make them out to be; if anything, the sanctions-busters are far more vulnerable than the United States to rogue Iranian and NorK behavior); and the administration is inclined to simply repeat the cycle of failure in Latin American policy due to nativist sentiment from both parties’ congressional caucuses and the public at large.

Legislative Success: B+ (but falling)

It’s hard to give presidents much credit or blame on this score; regardless, the sheep-herding in Congress went well when he had a working majority, and I’d expect it will go rather less well now. This is an element of the grade that seems likely to be a poor prediction of his 2013 or 2017 final grade, so I would discount it accordingly.

Practical Politics: B-

Much to the chagrin of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, the Obama administration thus far has been more Clintonian (or Bush43ian, particularly on foreign policy) than Carterian (or Reaganite). As James suggests, “muddling through” is about as well as can be expected given the economic downturn, a hostile foreign policy environment, and a decidedly conservative public policy mood swing since Obama took office. His use of regulatory policy so far has been relatively shrewd, particularly for a president without any prior executive branch experience to speak of; that prowess will be challenged over the course of the next two years, and likely will determine whether his final grade is a B or a C.

Dave Schuler:

I don’t actually have a great deal to add beyond the points that my colleagues have made.

Communication: B-

If it weren’t for the occasional excellent speech, e.g. Tucson, he’d be drifting lower. Too frequently, he’s lecturing rather than addressing.

Domestic Policy: D

There is only one domestic policy issue: the economy. If unemployment remains high and we’re in an L-shaped, Japan-style recovery, D is being generous.

Foreign Policy: D+

In my view expanding the war in Afghanistan has been an error. Given that he has squandered the last two years in terms of trade agreements and that otherwise, as has been mentioned above, his foreign policy has closely resembled that of President Bush’s second term, I can’t even award a C.

Legislative Success: A

Passage of major healthcare reform, a goal that has eluded Democratic presidents for the last 30 years, assures President Obama an A in this area.

Practical Politics: C

In terms of practical politics President Obama is about where most presidents are at this point in their first terms. However, there are storm clouds on the horizon. His political opponents don’t like him a bit more than they did when he was elected, he’s in danger of losing independents, and he’s alienated portions of his base.

In summary, I think that President Obama deserves what we used to call a “gentleman’s C”.

Robert Prather:

I, too, have little to add, but here’s my two cents:

Communication: C

His oratorical skills are second to none, but his messaging has been poor. Political communication requires bullet points that can fit on a postcard. He prevaricates so much its almost like he’s thinking out loud.

Domestic Policy: B+

He learned one of the primary lessons of the failure of HillaryCare and didn’t try to do it himself and ram it down Congress’s throat. He gave them a blueprint and negotiated with them and it was a success. The stimulus was too small, by around $400 billion and contained way too many tax cuts, but it still likely allowed us to avoid a second Great Depression.

Foreign Policy: B

In spite of his campaign rhetoric, he was never going to be able to hit the reset button. He inherited two wars, only one of which should never have been started, and he has essentially stuck to Bush’s second term as a model, as Steven says elsewhere. Realistically, it’s about the best that can be expected.

Legislative Success: B

Health care and stimulus alone merit an A. However, he did, and didn’t do more. Gays in the military was a success, the renewal of all of the Bush tax cuts was not. Not that he had any choice, but it ranks as a failure with me.

Practical Politics: C+

If practical politics took into account his strategy for passing Obamacare, he would merit a higher grade. However, it doesn’t and he has missed some opportunities by not maintaining a consistent message. It’s hard to know how he makes decisions because he doesn’t have any guiding principles; for better or worse, we knew where Bush 43 and Reagan stood. Not so much with this president. If he had Clinton’s skills with messaging, even though Clinton didn’t have firm principles that I’m aware of, his score would be higher here.

As far as I know, the primary determinant of his winning reelection will be the state of the economy (or at least the people’s views on it). I’m hoping for a good economy and that he does win reelection. Yes, I’ve moved to the left in recent years.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change conference, which opened in Cancun, Mexico on Monday, has yielded another example of how supposedly idealistic notions concocted by Western liberals, no matter how daft, can be transformed into weapons for international power politics. Bolivia has renewed its call for the establishment of an International Tribunal for Climate Justice that would be able to sanction governments that engage in “ecocide,” defined as crimes against biodiversity, nature and Mother Earth.

Bolivia’s UN Ambassador Pablo Salon asserted it was unacceptable for some developed countries to refuse a new commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. “Developed countries were looking for solutions that would put the onus on developing countries to reduce emissions,” Salon said. Making “ecocide” the equivalent of a war crime (or a crime against peace) would apply exclusively to the actions of developed countries.

The tribunal idea did not originate in Bolivia, but in the United Kingdom last April. It is the brainchild of labor lawyer-turned-Green activist Polly Higgins. Her idea was to prosecute industries such as fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry before the existing International Criminal Court at The Hague. Even more alarmingly, some supporters want to prosecute ”climate deniers” who oppose actions to combat global warming as eco-criminals. It’s the stuff from which fears of world government grow.

If you follow the first link in the quoted text, you will find no references to ecocide (be sure to hit the “read more” link at the bottom and search there too), no references to Bolivia, apart from a mention of melting glaciers, and no mention of the formation of an International Tribunal for Climate Justice.

If you check the second link in the quoted text, there’s at least some substance (this is the link for convenience):

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in Britain.

The proposal for the United Nations to accept ”ecocide” as a fifth ”crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court, is the brainchild of a lawyer-turned-campaigner, Polly Higgins.

The idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment such as fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.

Supporters of an ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute ”climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

Now, admittedly, there’s some scary stuff in there, but let’s talk about what’s not in there: no specific mention of prosecuting the U.S. and we are not even a member of the ICC, which makes it even more ludicrous. They can’t prosecute us. As for the fact that Bolivia has adopted this into their domestic law? Who cares, it’s Bolivia. All of the nations on earth rely on agriculture, mining and need access to fossil fuels until a good alternative is developed. As for it being aimed at developed counties only, these same countries rely on many undeveloped countries to provide natural resources so the undeveloped countries have a stake in this too; I’m quite sure they don’t want to be made even poorer due to this tribunal.

For the reasons stated above, I think Ms. Higgins is delusional about the possibility of this ever being adopted. Likewise, the post on American Thinker can best be described as a self-contained fever swamp.

For the record, I’m far more concerned with the UN’s resolution on religious defamation. Let’s stay focused on the real threats.

On the economy, I’m a pessimist and that might be bad for Obama. That’s not to say that the Republicans actually have anything to offer, because they don’t. It’ll be more tax cuts (expansionary) and perhaps some spending cuts (contractionary), but nothing that involves cutting defense, homeland security, etc. Obama’s (lack of) negotiating skills makes me even more pessimistic. He gave Republicans tax cuts in advance in the stimulus, even though it earned him few Republican votes, and spending is more stimulative than tax cuts.

Obama passed a Rube Goldberg health care bill, but Republicans are kidding themselves if they think they can repeal it. The Democrats still have the Senate, as well as the filibuster, and President Obama still has the veto. I don’t see a lot of realistic room for improvement.

In short, I’m pessimistic.

What I would like to do is pose a question that this tweet from Matthew Stinson made me think of: Is censorship strictly a government phenomenon or is it censorship when a private company does it?

For whatever reason, I’ve always thought the answer to that question is no because I think of censorship as being unconstitutional and private companies aren’t bound by it. It might be a semantic argument, but anybody got any thoughts on this? Lawyers perhaps?