Despite continual protestations by President Obama and his minions that all of his/our problems have been inherited, many are coming to the realization that he is in fact, the owner.  His herculean efforts to buy time and deflect blame, heretofore successful, are starting to ring hollow.  "Trust me" governing doesn't seem to cut it any longer.  A recent Gallup poll on Obama's handling of the economy showed a greater than 20 point decline in his rating.

Even a  sycophantic media and generally supportive populace can't hide from the mounting evidence of policy failure after policy failure.  If you doubt that's the case, simply overlay Bush 43 on top of the Obama fact set, and see if your opinion doesn't change.

Imagine Bush being cut slack for an economy still contracting well beyond the length of every recession since WWII.  Bush was derided mercilessly for about 1.4 million lost jobs the year after the shock of 9/11, while Obama has largely gotten a pass for the 3+ million jobs lost since he took office.  Unemployment never exceeded 6.3% in the aftermath of 9/11.  Today, it's 9.4% and rising.  The Bush economy added several million jobs in the post 9/11 years, even though the media frequently characterized it as a jobless recovery.  Obama's plan doesn't foresee significant job gains for quite some time.

The media has virtually ignored Obama's made-up and completely unprovable statistic of "saved jobs."  It's hysterical to think what would have happened had Bush tried to pull that maneuver.

Consider the Obama "stimulus."  Virtually every assumption he and his team used to sell the plan has already proved to be wrong—including unemployment which was supposed to peak at 8.2% (already 9.4% and climbing); the yearly deficit which was expected to max out at $1.8T (currently projected to be well over $2T); and GDP growth, already affirming suspicions of over optimism (calling for near-term growth greater than that realized during the height of the Internet bubble).

Again, use the Bush test.  What would have happened had GWB been responsible for a "stimulus" package that spent under 10% of the total allocated amount in year one—the most critical window for stopping the bleeding and resuscitating the economy?

What would the media have said if Bush had proposed to increase the deficit by five-fold in a single year?  Remember the Democrat's PayGo charade (every dollar of increased spending was supposed to be offset by a dollar in reduced spending)?  The media and Dems bludgeoned Bush with that tactic every time he proposed a new program—even those that were likely to increase revenue.

Think about all of the above in the context of not a single persistent pro-growth policy from the Obama administration.  Picture what Bush would have been accused of had he been so negligent as to allow such economic deterioration without driving major stimulative initiatives—of the free market, rather than government spending variety.

If you need proof that Obama's programs have been non-stimulative, just check out the dramatic increase in the savings rate.  It has far outstripped investment and consumer spending.  The lack of proper incentives are causing government dollars being poured into the system to be hoarded, rather than used to increase the size of the economic pie and create jobs and wealth.

Of course, we can't ignore the auto industry bailout.  Envision Bush's fingerprints fully on this debacle.  The media certainly would have thrashed him for favoring big business, even though they look the other way as Obama gives little respect to contract law in order to serve his primary constituency, big labor.

And, on the foreign policy front, arguably, things have never been worse with North Korea and Iran.

So, what does it all mean?

For one, it reinforces the significance of communication skills and media bias.  Bush's verbal ineptitude, coupled with the media's disfavor, would never have allowed him to reach this point so relatively unscathed.

More importantly, it highlights the dangers of policy proposals able to pass through the process with so little vetting.  We are all done a disservice, including the party in power, when vigorous debate is quashed or not covered adequately.  Unfortunately, bad decisions are the residue.

Given all of these failures, it will be interesting to see how the media and electorate reacts to the forthcoming debate, or lack thereof, over healthcare.  Obama and the Dems have a lot riding on it—most notably, the 2010 and 2012 elections.

We and the media have great power...and with that great power comes great responsibility.  Let's ensure that "trust me" politics is a thing of the past.