commentaries

"Obama was here to heal our politics, to move us beyond the stale debates and the childish partisanship that lead to stagnation, futility and silliness." And yet, here we are. Size Obama up? He's a size $16 trillion and growing.

"The key question about Obama: Is he really a serious man?" Good question, David Brooks. I kinda wish you had written less seriously this week, I was looking forward to more of the fine satire you gave us last week. You did frame the problem the Democrats have in Charlotte: to present a serious agenda "commensurate with the size of the problem that confronts us."

Democrats really know how to throw a party, though! Speech after speech of "We built this together!" Speech after speech of "We've got each other's backs!" Speech after speech urging, exhorting, prodding the President to keep us moving "Forward!" Maybe that's the fourth choice, Mr. Brooks--to coalesce us, the people, into a force which cannot be stopped.

Did Brooks' editor mistakenly insert Obama for Romney in the title of this article?

He has already ignored Bowles-Simpson. The other two are non-starters.

Fair article. I think that Obama has good intentions on helping some of the people but doesn't have the experience or knowledge to tackle the economy or deficit. For the middle class this election is about our wallets and personal wealth.

Paul Ryan voted against the Bowles Simpson resolutions which were never approved by the committee. How can the President ignore what the committee didn't approve?

Absolute garbage. Brooks is the RINO who said "Obama will be a great president because he had a nice crease in his pants." Unreal. My liberal sister still is convinced Brooks is a conservative. She watches PBS and the Lehrer show and believes they are "fair and balanced." America has a serious stupidity problem. This column is proof of that.

Obama already had the chance to support Simpson-Bowles and he flat out ignored pretty much every single recommendation. Perhaps Brooks is attempting to get Obama to lose the election since his other two options will scare moderates; it is possible since Brooks is a quasi-conservative. Using global warming as a main running point during an economic downturn will cause moderates to look at the consequences (higher energy prices during an economic downturn isn't going to help the unemployment rate). Attacking the free market sounds just as bad, demanding higher taxes and reducing the tax breaks for many Americans could be used against Obama during an election where the economy is the biggest issue. Brooks does have a good point though, I'm really not sure what the Democrats are running on at the moment other than simply hating rich people and their money...it would be a good idea to coalesce around a single issue (or two) that they can run on in election...hatred of rich people will only get you so far.

Pres. Obama is a serious left wing man. A seriously good, but not great politician. I appreciate how David Brooks, a conservative, can write about Pres. Obama in a respectful manner (something you are never,ever going to get from liberals regarding Mitt Romney). And I appreciate how he is allows for the Pres. another chance at being successful. But it may be too late, and as much as I hate to say it, (for I do like Pres. Obama as a person) I hope it is too late.

It's all well and good for us to say that Obama should stand for something, but the fact is that he has thrown many, many proposals forward only to be told by the Republican controlled congress that they are a non-starters. If he has Congress holding him back it is hard to get anything through thereby making it appear that you stand for very little. Clinton had a Republican Congress that was willing to come to a compromise solution for most every issue, even in the face of Clinton's severe scandal. This Congress is unwilling to do anything because as John Boehner said, he wants Obama to be a one term president.