"For instance, many of my interlocutors over here bought into the White House narrative that a few score Tea Partiers, who were not even the majority of House Republicans (themselves only controlling one half of Congress, itself only one of the two relevant branches of government in the dispute), were so strong that Democrats who controlled the White House and the Senate had no choice but to do their bidding."

The House was the most important party in the debate. Any tax increases or reforms need to originate in the House. If Boehner was unable to get his caucus to agree to anything that the Senate and the White House wanted then the Senate and the White House were powerless to do anything about it. Not to mention that the Republican party has decided that 60 votes are necessary to do anything in the Senate, so 'controlling' the Senate basically means nothing. The Republicans have become a party dedicated to the destruction of President Obama and all policy begins and ends with that goal.

And I can't wait to hear about international elites preferring Michael Bachmann or Herman Cain over Obama.

Though I don't necessarily disagree with the poster upthread about the primary motivation of Congressional Republicans, I think President Obama's supporters would be making a mistake if they assume Obama is bound to be reelected just because his opponent in 2012 is certain to look too extreme.

Obama likes to talk about "who we are" as Americans. He's hardly alone -- in a country that claims self-admiration and self-congratulation as its great national vices -- in imagining that who we are as Americans must be pretty close to who he and his strongest supporters are. Americans who hold radically different views, from this standpoint, must be beyond the pale: too rigid, too ideological, too extreme. The fact is, though, that the American economy is in great distress, which means many millions of Americans are as well. No President facing reelection under these circumstances can take anything for granted.

In fact, I largely agree with Feaver here. In the matter of the debt ceiling, Obama has acted like a candidate, not like a President. He accepted accolades for "getting a deal done" last winter by foolishly accepting extension of 2001's tax rate reductions, though a vote to raise the debt ceiling was clearly in sight by that time. He avoided any of the hard fiscal issues in the budget he submitted to Congress in the spring. The criticisms made of Obama that he put none of his own ideas on the table and made no specific proposals as to how he would close our structural fiscal deficit were all true.

Obama avoided controversy over his ideas, tried to place blame for unpleasant developments on his opponents, and sought to ensure that Congressional Democrats shared the spotlight for any unpopular ideas that might come up from his side. That he was largely right, and Congressional Republicans entirely wrong, on the substance of whether the debt ceiling should be increased in an orderly way (and the fiscal situation dealt with afterwards) hardly matters. Being right and losing has never been the path to political success in Washington.

Obama has, throughout the whole degrading debt ceiling circus, looked weak. It's not a good thing for the country when the President of the United States makes that impression. Years ago, when weapons of mass destruction that experts outside the Bush administration had warned were not in Iraq turned out, in fact, not to be there, the President of the United States looked like a doofus -- plunging the American military into years of war for no good reason. In fact, the United States has experienced a succession of Presidents who don't seem to have fully grasped the nature and responsibilities of the office, and conducted themselves in ways that did damage to the country's standing around the world. I have great sympathy for Obama's burdens, but he and his team had better realize that the debt ceiling business was a fiasco for them all. He, and they, have to do better.

...someone is missing George II. In Europe only Anders Breivik et al. does.

I agree, though, that the current debt ceiling fiasco has made Obama look weak, but not because of tactics, but because of the result. A shambolic process leading to sham savings and another circus for Christmas.

and I wouldn't disagree. You also make that sound like a bad thing, and again, I wouldn't disagree. However you completely fail (entirely by accident, I'm sure...) to mention exactly how campaign-like the Republicans acted. Their whole stated goal is to not get Obama re-elected in 2012. They weren't in it for the US, they were in it for damaging Obama's reputation wherever they could.

Come on. Both parties completely failed at the leadership exam during this debate, as it turned into a "Republican's are in it for the rich and downing Obama in 2012 (the exact campaign-like attitude issue you take with Obama)/ The Democrats/Obama aren't providing real leadership or negotiating anything."

What it really seemed like? A bunch of 4th graders yelling "You're stupid...", "Ya? Well, you stupider!"

I actually agree, Dr. Feaver that Obama is turning into a weak president with a weak record.

Your suggestion that the primary fault in the debt-ceiling debacle is attributable to Obama's "manifest failure to lead", however, is absurd.

What, exactly, should he have proposed that could have garnered support of a house majority? Have you not noticed that opposing Obama has become an end in itself in the Republican caucus, and that they refused his offers for greater spending cuts than they proposed?

Your suggestion that a few score tea partiers should not be pivotal ignores that fact that virtually all Republicans in congress have signed a pledge to never raise taxes, that the right wing exerted enough control over Boehner that he never tried to craft a true bipartisan proposal, and that Republicans in the senate were prepared to filibuster proposals there.

The Republicans' actions here were unprecedented and outrageous, as you would surely see by attempting a thought experiment in which 2007 Democrats signed a pledge to not allow any unfunded war spending and refused to raise the debt ceiling unless Bush raised taxes to pay for the Iraq war.

President Obama has additional advantages, in that he is thoughtful and articulate (something traveling that was not true of his predecessor) and fiercely disciplined about his public statements (something that was not true of the last Democratic President). But Obama has not used his advantages effectively.