These guys are clearly more than a bit blinded by partisanship. But to show exactly how, let's go ahead a take a look at their claims and break them down:
They tripled the deficit and sent the debt soaring. From the moment George Washington took the oath of office until Obama did, America had borrowed $9 trillion.
Under Obama, it has borrowed $3.2 trillion more, in less than two years.
Here's a BIG hint that they are partisan hacks: anyone who tells you the absolute figure for the deficit and tries to apply that to a comparison in the past without adding any note about inflation is being immensely deceitful. Of course the absolute figure is higher today! We've seen over two centuries of economic growth and inflation! In comparison its like saying that a person with $100,000 debt but who makes $2,000,000 a year is bad off compared to when they had $10,000 of debt but only made $5,000 a year. Anybody should be able to see how the absolute figure is totally inadequate for deciding whether or not a debt is bad or too high. And beyond that, critics of Obama don't even have to resort to these manipulative tactics!
As you can see, the US debt as a percentage of GDP is at its highest peacetime point in American history, only surpassed by WW2. You can pull that figure up and not be misleading in the slightest. But these authors took the lazy route.
Our healthcare system was deformed, manufacturing was terrified by the prospect of cap and tax, GM was absorbed by the government and conquered by the unions, and federalism was buried in an avalanche of subsidies that turned state governments into branch offices of Washington.
Several problems come up in this list. The first is very unspecific complaints. "Healthcare was deformed." By whose standards and in what ways? Another issue is complaining about things
that haven't even passed yet, like the Cap and Trade bill. Finally there the outright mental blinders. "Federalism was buried in an avalanche of subsidies." As if the federal government hadn't been doing that for decades! Think "No Child Left Behind," the national speed limit, the national drinking age, and innumerable other things. Obama's stuff looks mild compared to the infringements the feds have been making for decades, some of these done by conservatives. This is not a reasoned analysis but pure polemic.
The 2010 landslide will likely set the record for the largest transfer of House seats in an off-year election. The prior mark of 74 seats in 1922 (a Democratic gain in the wake of Harding's scandals and the Teapot Dome investigation) will probably be eclipsed.
Now there this: overly optimistic election predictions.
Most academics predict Republican gains, but reasonable observers are estimating between 22 to 54 seats and nobody except hacks guessing gains of 74 seats or more.
But the true measure of the damage Obama has done to his ideology and his party will not be evident for some time.
Finally there is this little gem. Despite not having any problem saying Obama's stuff is all going to be awful crap
the article admits its too soon to really say what the effects of his policies will be. It has completely prejudged his actions with no attempt to study them on a reasonable basis.
I don't agree with a lot of Obama's actions, but nonetheless this article is worthless except insofar as it is a textbook example of how to write a bad political opinion piece.