Tonight’s GOP debate scorecard:

Loser: Rick Perry -- again. The Texan plummeted in polls after uncertain performances in earlier debates; he needed to land some punches and, more important, sound more like a president than a governor. He failed on both counts. Asked to outline his economic plan at a long-scheduled debate over economic policy, he promised a little lamely to unveil something in the next few days. What, the dog ate his homework?

Winner: Mitt Romney -- again. Many conservatives don’t love the former Massachusetts governor and probably never will. But he sure knows how to take a question and turn it in the direction he wants. And he’s getting pretty good at the Ronald Reagan gambit: sounding conservative without frightening voters in the center. Obama won’t enjoy running against him one bit.

Best salesman: Herman Cain. He seized every opportunity to tout his 9-9-9 plan (and as you surely know by now, that means a 9% income tax, a 9% corporate tax and a 9% sales tax).  Does the plan make sense? Not really. But as Cain pointed out, it’s a lot easier to remember than Romney’s 59-point blueprint.

Sharpest gadfly: Newt Gingrich. He can’t run a presidential campaign, but he’s a wickedly effective polemicist. His Fox News contract, suspended for now, beckons.

Best overall performances: Panelists Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post and Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News. They asked tough, smart questions that put all the front-runners -- Romney, Perry and Cain -- on the defensive. Some partisans will complain, but it’s exactly what panelists are supposed to do. As Harry Truman said: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

RELATED:

Live coverage: GOP debate at Dartmouth College

GOP debate, round 3: It's Romney's night, not Perry's

GOP debate, round 2: The night's winner, loser, survivor and comeback

GOP debate, round 1: Biggest winner, loser and missed opportunity

--Doyle McManus

Photo: Republican presidential candidates and journalists gather before a presidential debate sponsored by Bloomberg and the Washington Post held at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., on Tuesday. Jon Huntsman, left; Michele Bachmann; Rick Perry; Julianna Goldman; Herman Cain; Karen Tumulty; Mitt Romney; Charlie Rose; Ron Paul; Newt Gingrich; Rick Santorum. Credit: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg 

There are many truisms in politics.  Here's mine:

It's never good to lose to the pizza guy.

As The Times' Paul West reported Saturday:

In a startling embarrassment for the Republican presidential front-runner, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was tripped up by businessman Herman Cain in a straw ballot of Florida Republican activists Saturday that Perry himself had touted as an important measure of the field.

Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza, got 37% of the vote, while Perry received 15%.

(Oh, and does anyone still remember that little spitfire Michele Bachmann?  She didn't actually compete in the Florida straw poll, and she got 1%. Which, to be fair, is several more votes than the Domino's delivery guy got.)

Cain, of course, couldn't wait to trumpet the victory as a signal that his message is getting through. 

And what is his message? As The Times reported Monday:  

In his television appearances, Cain credited his message, particularly his idea to throw out the existing tax code. "I feel great," he said of his victory. "The message is more powerful than money."

Cain's economic policy is based on what he calls his 9-9-9 plan: 9% tax on corporate income; 9% personal tax rate; and a 9% federal sales tax. The plan causes a split among economists and politicians. It would eliminate deductions, and it would also hit the poor and middle class hardest since the sales tax would represent a larger chunk of their income than a rich person's.

Uh, yea.  Listen, not to rain on Cain's parade, but only in the "through the looking glass" world of today's Republican Party does a candidate believe that this message --  "Vote for me: I'll tax the poor and middle class the most!" -- is resonating with voters.

And Cain's still not getting much love from the pundits. The Times' Doyle McManus, for example, wrote an entire column Sunday on the Republican race and didn't mention him once.

No, most political observers saw in Cain's victory a backlash against Perry and his subpar performance at the GOP debate in Orlando, Fla., last week.

In case you missed it, one low point for Perry came in this exchange:

Governor Perry, if you were president and you got a call at 3 a.m. telling you that Pakistan had lost control of its nuclear weapons at the hands of the Taliban, what would be your first move?

GOV. PERRY: Well, obviously, before you ever get to that point, you have to build a relationship in that region. And that's one of the things that this administration has not done. Just yesterday we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with -- and that's the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country -- so to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States. For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16s, we chose not to do that. We did the same thing with Taiwan. The point is our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends; we will be standing by there with them. Today we don't have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality.

Reportedly, the CIA and the NSA are seeking to obtain the secret decoder ring that will tell them what Perry meant.

Doesn't matter, you say?  This election is about jobs and the economy, not foreign policy?

Well, remember, events have a way of shaping presidencies.  George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus, a world at peace and a pretty good economy.  Within months, 19 guys flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and suddenly, a knowledge of foreign affairs became pretty darn important.

For now, though, the GOP race is like a bad reality show.  In this week's episode, the pizza guy from nowhere gets to say, with a somewhat straight face, "Vote for me and I’m going to deliver."

Which, at the moment, is much better than, "Pakistan?  Where the heck is that?"

RELATED:

Perry competing on Romney's turf

McManus: The GOP's hard-right tilt

Santorum sees Cain win as sign of GOP dissatisfaction

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain speaks to delegates before a straw poll in Orlando, Fla. Credit: John Raoux / Associated Press

Winner on points: Mitt Romney. Came equipped with slick, well-honed attack lines to use on Rick Perry, and landed them all -- on Social Security, immigration and "electability." His defense of "Romneycare" is so well practiced that it's beginning to sound almost plausible.

Loser:  Rick Perry. The Texas governor started strong but ran out of gas at the halfway mark. Got a "3 a.m. phone call" question about a crisis in Pakistan and floundered as he tried to think of something coherent to say. Battered from all sides on in-state tuition for illegal immigrant kids, his response was that if you don't want to give the kids a break, you don't have a heart. Wrong audience for that one!

Most effective wing-man: Rick Santorum. Romney didn't need much help on the immigration issue, but Santorum gave him some anyway.

Missing in action: Michele Bachmann. Last time, she made hay with the HPV issue. This time, she couldn't find a foothold.

Post-debate winner: Romney. Fox News awarded him a nice long interview to repeat his attacks on Perry, and Fox's focus group said they thought the former Massachusetts governor did the best job.

Issues you didn't hear mentioned: The global economic crisis, the swooning financial markets, the record-high poverty rate and the decline of median family income, energy and the environment.  But take heart: We still have at least a dozen debates to go!

 RELATED:

GOP debate, round one: Biggest winner, loser and missed opportunity

GOP debate, round two: The night's winner, loser, survivor and comeback

GOP debate, round three: Live coverage

--Doyle McManus 

Photo: The Republican presidential candidates gather before the Sept. 22 debate in Orlando, Fla. Credit: John Raoux / Associated Press

Narrow winner, on points: Mitt Romney, for the second debate in a row. He pressed his attack on Rick Perry's Social Security position pretty effectively. He parried attacks on his healthcare plan, something on which he's had plenty of practice. He made no significant errors. The "tea party" crowd in the hall wasn't on his side, but let's see what happens in the polls.

Biggest survivor: Perry, battered but unbowed. As the front-runner, he was the target of almost everyone else on the stage -- attacked on Social Security (by Romney), HPV inoculation (by Michele Bachmann) and immigration (by almost everyone). He wasn't as smooth and sure-footed as Romney, but he held his ground. He's in this race for the duration. 

Mini-comeback: Bachmann. She focused most of her fire on Perry, her main rival for the top spot as the anti-Romney conservative in the race. She was sharp, quick-witted and rigorous in her adherence to tea party doctrine. It probably wasn't enough to knock Perry off his pedestal as the front-runner, but it should keep her in the race in case the Texan stumbles.

Biggest loser: The Republican Party as a big-tent organization that can appeal to the center. If the tea party gets the kind of candidate it demands, the GOP will face trouble in the general election. Fed-bashing, immigrant-bashing and uninsured-patient-bashing won't win a majority.

Biggest disappointment: We still don't know what Romney and Perry propose to do about Social Security. They talked about their courage to say the system has problems, but that's not what takes courage. Proposing specific fixes takes courage -- and they didn't do that.

RELATED:

Perry's sweet spot

Live coverage: GOP debate, round two

Rick Perry's 'hard facts' about Social Security vs. actual facts

GOP debate, round one: Biggest winner, loser and missed opportunity

--Doyle McManus

Mitt Romney, left, and Rick Perry spar during Monday's GOP debate in Tampa sponsored by CNN and the Tea Party Express. Credit: Win McNamee / Getty Images

Biggest Missed Opportunity: Rick Perry. He needed to explain what he means when he calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Does he want to repeal it? Change it? We still don't know.

Biggest winner: Mitt Romney. Looked and sounded presidential. Had a solid response to Perry on Social Security. Cited his 59-point economic plan about 59 times, but you would too, if you had produced a 59-point plan.

Biggest loser: Michele Bachmann. Next to Perry and Romney, looked and sounded like last month's flavor.

Best supporting actors: Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul. They don't look as if they're getting anywhere in this race, but they had interesting things to say. A good argument for keeping debates open to second-tier candidates.

RELATED:

Rick Perry's make-it-or-break-it debate?

McManus: A two-man GOP presidential race?

Where do Republicans stand on social mobility?

Cheney and Rove vs. Rick Perry on Social Security

Our next GOP president must facilitate the American dream

--Doyle McManus

Photo: GOP presidential candidates debate at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley. Credit: Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times / September 7, 2011

Sarah Palin's indecisive, thin-skinned, addicted to the spotlight and very well paid for being a "political" personality. What she's not is ready to run for president. Here’s Doyle McManus' take:

Two years ago, one of the elders of the Republican Party, former Richard Nixon aide Fred Malek, gave Palin some friendly advice on how to prepare for a presidential campaign. Malek told Palin, then still governor of Alaska, that she should do three things: finish at least one full term in office, master some tough subjects such as fiscal policy and foreign affairs (and give speeches to show it), and build a staff that could serve as the core of a campaign machine.

But Palin didn't do any of that. Instead, she has devoted herself to less-demanding activities that have kept her in the public eye and provided a handsome income besides. She wrote (or, more precisely, coauthored) a bestselling memoir that made at least $7 million. She starred in a television travelogue that earned her a reported $2 million. She makes $1 million a year from a three-year contract as an exclusive "contributor" to Fox News. And she has given dozens of speeches at rates that sometimes top $100,000 per appearance (although she agreed to do this weekend's tea party rally in Iowa for free, organizers say). That adds up to an average gross income of at least $5 million a year since she left her $125,000-a-year job as governor.

Later in his column, McManus urges the former Alaskan governor to "end the fan dance [and] let her forlorn suitors know whether she's ready to make a commitment."

 To read many of the opinions on our discussion board, Palin won't run -- unless it's to a spotlight or a pot of gold. Here are a few of the comments.

Another adjective to describe Palin

Calling someone out for their stupidity is not fascination, fear, or reverence. It's calling someone out for their stupidity.

For those of you who think the liberal media piles on Sarah Palin, let me ask you this...does the liberal media call Condoleezza Rice stupid? Do they call Olympia Snowe stupid? Kay Bailey Hutchinson? Absolutely not. They may disagree with them and have articles slanted in the opposite direction, but no one calls these ladies stupid.

Sarah Palin is genuinely, unabashedly, stupid.

--disbelief

Palin's enjoying her time in the spotlight

Sarah Palin is not going to run for president.  She knows she can't win the nomination, much less the presidency, and she is enjoying the adulation that she knows will disappear when the nominee emerges.  Let her have her fun, and if people keep sending her money, that's their choice. 

--TimBowman

Is Palin brave enough to face Michele Bachmann in a debate?

She's not going to run.  Sarah would be top bill in the media if she said she was running -- she wouldn't have to start bus chases, crash GOP events, repeat string-along one-liners, or any of the other minor "issues" to keep her gig alive.   Regardless if she's viewed as a media junky or candidate, she'd benefit -- she has nothing to gain by dragging out her decision -- delays have already cost her supporters who've moved to Perry or Bachmann.  If anyone thinks her delay has a valid reason, think how slow decision making makes a bad executive -- thankfully, her running for president is not an important issue (like whether to hit a terrorist when info pops up with a narrow time window).

Scariest thing for her now is the Tea Parties may lose interest in her when she doesn't run.  Yesterday's willingness to toss aside all the work and sacrifice organizers and supporters made to see her on Saturday to keep O'Donnell away is without precedent -- both for her and any other public figure.   It says Sarah's all about Sarah/her emotions and no one else.  I don't think Sarah likes Bachmann either (some festering resentment from getting bumped from her perch) -- one has to wonder if she'd ever face Bachmann in a debate.  Sarah's going to be in Seoul during the next debate -- this is her third dodge to avoid one. 

--snyderchris87654

Who would vote for her?

Who in their right mind would vote for a candidate who didn't participate in the debates?  If you don't know where they stand on difficult issues, you can't make a logical decision.

--WhatIsWrongWithYouYahoos

Just wait for the convention

By the desperate tone of this article Sarah Palin has got all of you in the main-creep's media coming and going like chickens without a head. Ha! Ha! Ha! She who laughs last, laughs best. You all gave her your best cheap shots from 2008 till today in an orchestrated effort to destroy her but look at who is crying now. I hope she never makes a choice and keeps all you liberal Palin haters with your skivvies all tied up in knots until the Republican National Convention. It would serve the media right if the 2012 convention nominated her in a draft by acclamation. Palin and Rubio in 2012!

--Socorro V

*Spelling errors in the above comments have been corrected.

RELATED:

The problem with Perry

McManus: A two-man GOP presidential race?

Where do Republicans stand on social mobility?

2012 campaign: Defending Michele Bachmann (generically)

Our next GOP president must facilitate the American dream

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Buttons showing former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former President Reagan are displayed at Tea Party Express tour kickoff on Aug. 27 in Napa. Credit: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

With success in Libya within reach, opinionators are weighing in on how to handle post-revolution Libya. In his Thursday column, Doyle McManus asked whether the outcome in Africa would help boost President Obama's chance at reelection. The short answer is no. He elaborates by reminding us of single-term President George H. W. Bush:

Twenty years ago this summer, American cities staged noisy, flag-waving parades to celebrate the U.S. victory in a war we've almost forgotten: the Persian Gulf War against Iraq. The president at the time, George H.W. Bush, saw his poll ratings soar in the war's afterglow. But 18 months later, on election day in 1992, the victory parades were ancient history. The voters, impatient with the economy's slow recovery from a recession, turned Bush out of office after a single term.

In response, the majority of readers in our discussion board have left comments answering the question posed in the column’s headline: Will there be a Libya bounce for Obama? Here are a few of their answers.

A different bounce

Yes, a bounce right out of office!!!

--coondog69

Obama needs focus on the domestic front

President Obama deserves high marks for his deft handling of the NATO operation in Libya. Unlike George W. Bush's disastrous decision to invade Iraq, Obama allowed the Libyan people to determine the ultimate outcome. With the exception of Afghanistan, Obama has handled foreign affairs very well. One important factor here is the excellent job that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has done.

Having said that, as a supporter of the President I have to say that his performance on the domestic side has been a huge disappointment thus far. The problems that we face with our economy require bold leadership and a willingness to constantly communicate with the American people. Obama has been far too timid and conciliatory to the extreme views of Republicans in Congress. You can't help but think how FDR would handle the current mess that we find ourselves in with the illegal behavior of the banks causing the housing mess that still lingers...unemployment....etc. This is the worst mess we've been in since the Great Depression. The President needs to now lead on the domestic front as well.

--BartA58

Obama doesn't deserve praise

The only bounce Obama should get for this cruel despicable inhumane "humanitarian intervention" is to be bounced on his head. This action was in total violation of Libya's national sovereignty.  Analyses of Libya's 148 main tribes showed that well over 60 percent of Libya's population supported Gaddafi.   How ridiculous to violate the desire of a nation's majority in removing a regime that is supported by the nation’s majority.  Isn't democracy the rule by a nation's people - or should a nation's regime be determined by powerful foreign countries who want better positioning with regard to its vast oil reserves - and who remove the govt. supported by a nation's majority?  -  This was an insidious power grab for Libyan oil, as all the All African Union (organization of all Africa's nations) have been stating for many weeks as they demanded - to non listening NATO ears - that the bombing of Libya by NATO be stopped.  The US and France and UK have lost much respect in the eyes of African nations as well as such nations as Brazil and India (not to mention Russia and China) who were demanding the bombing to stop for months.   But no, the West knew it could not get sufficient clout with Kadafi’s regime regarding Libyan oil - so removed it so it could deal with a weak NTC government which would not exist apart from NATO's involvement.  How shameful has this been and embarrassing to me. 

--JamesPadgett

Was this really a humanitarian mission?

No.  Because we shouldn't be there, period.

It makes no sense to topple one dictator so we can put fundamentalists in power to impose their own tyranny.

A rebellion is a civil war.  Other countries should not intervene in civil wars.  If the English and the French had intervened in ours, the outcome would have been much different.

The truth is, we went in for one thing: Oil.

Just as we did in Afghanistan, where Big Oil has been trying to put in pipelines for 15 years.

Just as we did in Iraq, where the US Army protect the Ministry of Oil while rioters sacked Baghdad after Saddam's fall.

Just as we back Saudi Arabia, the Big Daddy of Oil Dictatorships-- from whence all the 9/11 hijackers came.

Want to know the big dirty about America's wars?  They are resource wars.

We trade blood for oil.  And we don't give a hoot for the lives of our dead. 

We have become so greedy, that like Midas, our touch turns others to stone, for our hearts have long ago turned to stone.

--pahartnett

*Spelling errors in the above comments have been corrected.

RELATED:

The Libya lesson

When Kadafi commanded respect

Libya's problems are far from over

After Libya, the question: To protect or depose?

The conversation: Planning for post-revolution Libya

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: President Obama leaves after speaking about Libya on Monday, in Chilmark, Mass., on Martha's Vineyard, Mass. Credit: Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo

President Obama is trying to remain optimistic, but things aren't looking great. The decrease in the unemployment rate to 9.1% from 9.2% isn't much of a decrease; no president since Franklin Roosevelt  has been reelected with a jobless rate that high, op-ed columnist Doyle McManus wrote Sunday. The economic rebound during the second half of the year that the Obama administration was hoping for isn’t looking good either, and the president's underwhelming stimulus package is an easy target for the opposition, McManus said.

Obama’s plan to fix the economy is a "mini-stimulus" -- money for the economy now, with cuts later -- but that will be difficult to sell to voters on the heels of the debt-ceiling debate. Here’s an excerpt from the column:

To sway the skeptics, Obama will have to convince them that his approach really will produce more jobs, even though his efforts until now — principally his $787-billion stimulus package passed in 2009 — have fallen short of expectations. And he'll need to persuade a contentious Congress to pass at least some of his ideas.

Some Democrats contend that the president can benefit even if Republicans in Congress block one or two of his proposals. Win or lose, they argue, he needs to pick a fight to make it clearer to voters what side he's on.

[...]

Ultimately, though, Obama will be judged by results. If the unemployment rate recedes at all in 2012, he'll be in a position to claim some credit. But unless the jobs picture improves significantly, he still faces an uphill battle.

Many readers on the discussion board are holding out for better alternatives in the 2012 election, but there don’t seem to be many viable candidates.

The GOP strategy is to follow Europe’s failed austerity

[Rep. Eric] Cantor says "been there, done that" when it comes to the stimulus and unemployment benefits, but what is the alternative from the GOP? Their alternative is to follow the failed austerity approach of Europe, where literally every country that has focused on cuts as the solution has experienced SLOWER economic progress than the United States. GOP leaders literally don't have an example to provide, current or historical, where a capitalist country contracted it's way out of an economic crisis. 

--facingreality

He’ll keep his job if he can convince voters that the GOP will make things worse

"Can the president persuade voters to let him keep his job when so many of them have lost theirs?" If he can convince him that the GOP candidate would kill even more jobs, yes. Regarding the irresponsible ideas, like spending cuts without new taxes, endorsed by the rethuglican challengers, that's not totally unlikely.

Still, it would be much preferable if there was a more left wing Democrat challenging Obama and his appeasement policies in the primary. Even if the challenger wouldn't win, he/she would force Obama to move to the left again. After the constant pandering to right wing ideas during the last years, that would be a positive development, for a change (a small change).

--Gray62

Another Democrat needs to take charge of the party

Obama will not change directions. He is too much of an ideologue. Best thing for the country is for him to not run a second term. Someone else from the his party needs to take charge. The problem is that no one from his party has the guts to challenge Obama!! As for Obama, a teaching position at the university would be an appropriate job. While there he can take classes in Management and Leadership!!!

-- artsmart50

Obama fooled me once, but he won’t again

For me, this is not about ideology or party, it is about competence. If you read these message boards, you will see that a lot of us who voted for him are disappointed and disillusioned. Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me again, shame on me.

--SilenceDoGoodII

Are you sure you want to vote Republican?, in response to SilenceDoGoodII

So you will vote Republican? Sure about that?

Its all about divide and conquer. I think many would love to have another option, but Obama will take the DEM nomination and by default collect votes. Change the system ... and you can get some of that "change" he was talking about. 

--marsaro

I’m not a fan of Obama, but his opponents are worse

Of course he will, are there any viable opponents, I don't think so. I'm not a fan of Obama, but the current field of the GOP is dismal and untrustworthy scaring the heck out of the elderly and poor. There is a long time to the election and many things will change, certainly Obama will pull a rabbit out of the hat in the last moment to get himself re-elected.

--Centerlane

Politicians are too busy raising campaign money to do their jobs

The spending problem belongs to both sides of the aisle. Politicians are too focused on raising campaign money to keep their cushy jobs, which, in turn, requires them to pay back those who donated their cash to help elect them. This leads them down a path of putting the interests of average Americans second to those who contributed to their campaign war chests.

Calling people names […] does nothing to bring us closer to a solution.

The question is that now that the alarm bells are sounding (downgraded credit rating, debt level, etc), will we as a nation, begin to take an honest look at how our tax dollars are being used, and how we can bring government spending under control.

We won't be able to "tax" our way out of this problem, and we likely won't be able to "cut" our way out of it either. The solution will lie somewhere in between.

As a conservative, I am staunchly opposed to increasing taxes, the same way those on the left oppose cuts. With that being said, to get the job done, each side is going to have to hold their nose, and give a little.

--aaronking63

The next president will have to do more than point fingers at the last guy in office

What if we have years more to go with the current hell; like maybe another decade of shrinkage or stagnation? What policies do we have from either side for that? Can the GOP just pretend the poor don't exist when they begin to approach 30 or 40 percent of the population? Can the Democrats keep saying that we need to provide everyone with the same level of health care spending when the cost for that approaches half of what the bottom half makes and how do we tell those unfortunate folks that this is what you get, that other stuff is for the rich folks? 

I'm more than willing to admit that these last four years have been a failure, but the man or woman who wants to take Obama's place needs to show us how they will change things for the better; they can't just say that I'm not that guy because even if they aren't that guy they could still be the guy before who was busy working on his abs while the economy rotted from the inside. [Mitt] Romney built his wealth on financial strip mining. The prosperity that [Texas Gov. Rick] Perry brought to his state has come from the high gas prices that have hurt the rest of us. [Rep. Michele] Bachmann has government programs to thank for her wealth and income while railing against government spending. [Former Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty borrowed from his state's future and left them with a deficit of billions. None of these people have a plan to do anything for us; they are busy running against Obama.

-- TomFiore

RELATED:

Now, a focus on jobs

Obama insists U.S. is still a AAA nation

Obama says more to be done to boost the economy

Departing Obama advisor: Economy  in a ‘bit of a slog’

Unemployment: How to get ourselves out of the job crisis

-- Samantha Schaefer

Photo: The economy is not doing President Obama's reelection prospects any favors. Credit: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

President Obama's approval ratings may not have dropped during the debt ceiling crisis, but he may end up paying a price in the court of public opinion on election day. Op-Ed columnist Doyle Mcmanus weighed in Thursday.

Obama's negotiating victories in the final deal weren't on matters of substance, like tax revenue. They were on matters of process: on making sure another debt-ceiling vote doesn't happen until 2013 and making sure the mechanism for choosing further spending cuts isn't tilted in the Republicans' favor. Try selling those to voters as a victory for the beleaguered middle class.

Republicans, on the other hand, suffered from an excess of clarity. They had just two major goals: deep spending cuts and no new taxes. On taxes, they stuck to their guns and won. On spending, deficit hawks complained that the cuts weren't deep enough, but they were enough for Boehner and his lieutenants to claim at least a partial win on their top priority.

[…]

Republicans have given answers that many voters find extreme, but at least they're clear. If Obama hopes to keep his job, he will need to match their clarity.

Readers on the discussion board don't make the president's approval rating look so rosy either.

Obama sabotaged Democratic success with his love for bipartisan solutions

"the visionary post-partisan he's always wanted to be."

Indeed. And that vain attitude is directly responsible for the Dems losing the 2010 election. In his fetish love for bipartisan solutions, which were totally unnecessary when the Dems held both majorities, Obama sabotaged any impressive successes for the Dem lawmakers. And with the resulting unconvincing record to show for two years work, many incumbents failed to convince voters that they deserve another term.

And for 2012, it looks as if this will continue. Obama damages his own party with his constant rush to the right. Seems he only cares for his own reelection, as is evident by all the reports about WH aides being primarily concerned with adjusting the president's actions to appeal to swing voters. But this strategy can seriously backfire: Left wing voters are increasingly annoyed about both the lawmakers' setbacks and the lackluster "middle of the road" course of Obama. So, for every vote Obama may win in the center (questionable, imho), he loses two votes on the left. That's not the way to win reelection, and that will hurt the Dems, too.

So much for the stupid "vision" of being a "post-partisan" president. This simply doesn't work for the nation, and the lack of convincing results is evidence of that. Would be good if there was a real liberal, a determined Democrat, running against Obama in the primary!

--Gray62

Obama has become a hostage to events

Doyle McManus is correct, but his arrival to our party is a trifle tardy.  Those of us who have been measuring Obama's words and actions could have informed him long ago on what he apparently has only recently discovered: This president, a self-described bluffer, says things he doesn't mean or intend to follow-through on as a matter of course.

For example, during the 2008 campaign Obama mentioned that affirmative action programs should continue, but not for well-heeled black children, such as his daughters.  Furthermore, he suggested that poor, white children from disadvantaged backgrounds SHOULD be eligible for affirmative action.  Such a radical change would have eliminated the race component of affirmative action completely, replacing it with financial need and "personal narrative".

Upon hearing this siren call, we conservatives laughed, rolled our eyes and made a certain hand gesture normally frowned upon in polite company.

But we were right.  Obama got elected and forgot all about that little idea, and many, MANY others.  It is nothing short of absurd to suggest this Administration can somehow be saved from itself by taking a firm position on something--ANYTHING--if only for the sake of seeming to be principled.  It's too late.

Obama, who now owns the most dysfunctional economy since the Great Depression, has become a hostage to events.

--GregMaragos

So should Obama have dug his heels in more on the agreement?

Sounds like Doyle is lamenting that Obama didn't dig in his heels on the debt ceiling crisis. Had he done that, America would be in default for the first time in its history. Since everyone on both sides of the aisle seems to hate the bill that finally passed, that confirms it's the best possible agreement they could have reached. Let's hope we can all move on from here and do better, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans.

--markmcintyre726

The only thing Obama is good at is getting elected

Obama has proven that he can't lead, can't negotiate, and really has no backbone or substance.  He seems to be good at one thing, and one thing only...getting elected.  It helps that the Republicans keep providing him with opponents that demonstrate even less ability.  Sad.

--lankee

He’s always had a “clarity gap” because he doesn’t speak about substance

Obama has always had a "clarity gap."  He speaks in political platitudes and not facts and figures.  He is a politician, pure and simple. 

--tommythek50

RELATED

McManus: The write stuff

Deficit reduction: Who matters now in Washington?

Decoding the debt deal: What it means for you [The conversation]

Newt Gingrich: Why is he running for the GOP presidential nomination?

--Samantha Schaefer

Photo: President Barack Obama walks out to deliver a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington on Aug. 2 following the Senate's passing of the debt ceiling agreement. Credit: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

Though Tuesday’s debt deal managed to raise the debt ceiling, which was ultimately the intended goal, it left many feeling unsatisfied. “Federal debt is still ballooning, healthcare costs are still rising, and we're nowhere close to an agreement on raising tax revenue,” writes Doyle McManus in his Thursday column. The fiasco surrounding the deal, however, may have been a game-changer in many ways, prompting people to wonder about the ripple effect it will have on significant issues ranging from the national security and social welfare to the political process. Here’s what opinionators are saying:

What it means for Obama’s presidential campaign

At the end, of course, Obama was in the room. But much of the time, he looked more like a victim than a hero. When his talks with Boehner failed, the president described himself as a forlorn bride, “left at the altar.” Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Obama had simply been mugged. As appeals for sympathy, both images had a certain charm, but they didn't do much for the president's stature. […]

Democrats have tried to console themselves by noting that the deadlock drove the popularity of Congress and its Republican leaders even lower than Obama’s. Gallup said Congress’ standing has hit an all-time low, with only 14% of the public approving of the legislators’ performance.

But that won’t do Obama much good next year. He’s not running against John Boehner; he’s likely to be running against a governor who never got near Capitol Hill.

--Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times

What it means for House speaker John Boehner’s reputation

We now know that economic growth has been slowing all year, for a number of obvious reasons -- Japan's earthquake, high gas prices, European sovereign debt problems, a gradual deceleration in the Chinese economy. And then, as nervousness started to mount, we watched our own government manufacture an utterly unnecessary crisis that froze investors, employers, and consumers in their tracks at exactly the wrong time.

On Friday, we'll get to see the government's jobs reports for July. If it comes in low, Republicans will immediately claim that the bad numbers are a reflection of Obama's stewardship of the economy. But if you were an employer making hiring decisions in July, while watching House Republicans openly root for a government default, would you open up your company wallet? If Americans aren't feeling confident about the future, John Boehner is at least as much to blame as Barack Obama.

--Andrew Leonard, Salon

What it means about our political process

Gov. Jerry Brown called the recent debt-ceiling debate "a very dangerous and sorry spectacle" that reflects a decaying American political system, and said he would consider changes to the state term-limits law, or perhaps even a part-time Legislature, to try to make California more governable.

Brown, who first served as governor from 1975 to 1983, said the rancorous divisions between Democrats and Republicans in Sacramento and Washington have surprised him. "What is shocking to me coming back here after 27 years is the hyperpartisan quality of debate," he said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "There’s something atrophying in the political process. It’s getting extremely rigid and inflexible. […]That obsessive, partisan ideology is what’s making it impossible to govern."

--Anthony York, PolitCal

What it means for the wealthy

Perhaps most important, this week's debt deal does nothing to change the fact that the George W. Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012. Obama and congressional Democrats will be able to bargain for increased taxes on the wealthy, in a situation in which they have much less to lose.

--Daniel Markovits, Los Angeles Times

What it means for the poor

President Obama's debt ceiling deal is widely considered a historic defeat for progressives, a successful attack on the New Deal and Great Society achievements of the past century. Congresswoman Donna Edwards (Democrat, Maryland), summed up the disappointment, in which half the Democrats in the House voted against their president, tweeting:

"Nada from million/billionaires; corp tax loopholes aplenty; only sacrifice from the poor/middle class? Shared sacrifice, balance? Really?"

--Amy Goodman, The Guardian

What it means for national security

The first and most obvious loser: National security.

The economist Herb Stein used to advocate a simple model of federal budgeting:

a) Decide how much it costs to defend the country.

b) Pay for it.

c) Then see what else you can afford.

Adam Smith phrased the same idea more elegantly, by saying that "defense is superior to opulence." The point is that the defense of the nation is not just another line-item. It's the first obligation of government, more important than any other form of spending, and way more important than minimizing taxes.

Yet this budget deal treats defense as just another special interest. Worst is the enforcement mechanism for the deal: If spending targets are not met, the deal subjects Medicare and Medicaid to automatic cuts (presumably to punish Democrats) and subjects defense to cuts (presumably to punish Republicans). The enforcement mechanism could have included new taxes, but defense was substituted to clinch the deal. That way Republicans get to tell their Tea Party base that the deal contains no tax increases. But the substitution also reveals that for today's Republican Party, the defense of the nation is at best a secondary priority.

--Ed Morrissey, The Week

What it means for unemployment

The nation's unemployed didn't get anything out of the debt deal, except for a weakened bargaining position and a significant reduction in leverage for any lawmakers who want to help end the unemployment crisis.

That's what passes for good news! Tim Geithner, in the pages of the Washington Post Wednesday, promises the umpteenth "pivot to jobs." But what is he offering? Little more than a promise that the jagged little pill the American people will now have to swallow may have medicinal side effects.

As for the White House, Robert Reich runs down the weak sauce: Obama's got no room to extend tax cuts on the middle class, no ability to create a "WPA or Civilian Conservation Corps" type of jobs program, no way of unburdening cash-strapped state governments, and an infrastructure bank that's a non-starter unless it's a fully private concern -- with working class laborers building toll roads and "user-fee" services that benefit the affluent.

--Jason Linkins, The Huffington Post

What it means for the local economy

At this point -- and it's still very early -- we're probably looking at only the miserable. The package is heavily back-loaded, which means that the cuts won't be all that severe in 2012 -- something that a lot of economists had been concerned about. (The fear has been that cutting back at a time when the economy is still struggling, and when state and local governments have been dealing with their own debt problems, could potentially lead to another recession.) So it's important that these cuts won't happen tomorrow. Another positive is that two of Southern California's most successful industries these days, entertainment and technology, probably won't be impacted all that much. The one industry that's likely to take some sort of hit is defense - there's a trigger mechanism in the legislation that would go into effect if lawmakers can't agree on additional cuts, and defense would bear the brunt of those reductions. […]

Bottom line is that lots of federal dollars go into the local economy. No matter how you feel about the importance of reducing the deficit, government cutbacks clearly impact economic growth (that's one reason why the nation's gross domestic product was so disappointing in the second quarter). And it's also worth mentioning that even before the federal debt legislation, there's been a big reduction in government employment -- around 60,000 jobs in California over the last 12 months, about a third of that total coming from L.A. County alone. That covers federal, state and local jobs.

--Marc Lacter, KPCC via LA Observed

What the deal  means for you

Here are some things you should do to make sure you’re prepared for what’s to come:

1. This deal will almost certainly mean that the government won’t be available to throw more money into a future economic stimulus package, so you’ll need to create your own security blanket. Make sure you have a robust emergency fund with at least six to nine months of living expenses. This will protect you in case (heaven forbid) you lose your job or encounter some other dire circumstance.
2. The spending cuts will mean reduced funding for Social Security, so you can count less than ever on the government’s help for retirement. To make sure that you won’t have to work through the entirety of your golden years, start saving more aggressively for retirement through a 401(k) or IRA. ...
3. You can also expect Medicare and Medicaid funding to be cut substantially, so safeguard yourself now by making sure you have the best health insurance for your lifestyle and circumstances.

--Allison Kade, LearnVest

RELATED:

Debt, jobs and politics

Economy: Now, a focus on jobs

What the debt-ceiling deal didn't do

Did debt-ceiling drama damage Obama?

Isn't it time to lower America's war ceiling?

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky pauses during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Aug. 2, 2011, after the Senate voted to pass debt legislation. Credit: Jacquelyn Martin / AP Photo