Along with all the other policy and demographic issues facing the GOP, there is a fundamental disconnect around basic communication. What few times I have seen Steele on the tube, he seems more coherent than Bush, so maybe the GOP is trying to set some higher standards post-Bush for communication skills.

The Bush admin suffered from a failure to communicate effectively, or usually not at all. Bush always communicated with "Bubba" in mind, which would significantly undercut his message every time he spoke because there is nothing nuanced about "Bubba". Bush liked to reduce complex issues or actions to simplistic slogans such as "the axis of evil" or "bring it on" both of which probably pleased Bubba but made the US a laughingstock around the world. I think what most people concluded years ago was that GWB was not fully in control of the executive branch because it was way too hard of a job and way too complex for such a simple-minded person who could not speak clearly and coherently. People judge other people largely on how well they communicate simply because it is a window into their mind. What you say and how you say speaks volumes about how who you are, how you think, command of the issues and a million other things. This is basic stuff.

Now, along comes Obama who can adjust his speaking style to satisfy either the "lowest common denominator" in the room, or if he needs to, he can flip a switch and make the rhetoric soar. Reagan and Bill Clinton are the closest I can think of who can match Obama's rhetorical skills overall, and while Hillary and John McCain are not in the same league with these guys, they get a passing grade. Al Gore and John Kerry simply found it too annoying to speak in simple terms because it might make them seem less presidential or convey less gravitas. And the pathetic Sarah Palin gets an "F" and she should not even consider running for national office again until she is weened off the teleprompter.

What all this says is that the American people rely on the President to communicate effectively and honestly including formal and informal settings. If that is not somthing you do very well, stay away from the Oval Office.

Joan is barely old enough to remember LBJ but she is "over the moon" when it comes to FDR and the great wonders achieved by the New Deal. They were great but so what! There is almost zero resemblance between the economy of the 1930s and today. Back then we were an agricultural/industrial society with 30% living on farms and the rest in the inner cities working in factories. Today we are 1% on the farms and the rest scattered all over, working in offices, generally unrelated to manufacturing, for sure. Today's economy is a service-based economy that may not respond to stimulus in the same way as in the past because we don't produce anything anymore. Our economy is also driven by credit and consumption. Do we really know the impact of putting an extra $500 in everybody's pocket? Joan believes it will be spent immediately and kick-start the economy. Not so fast. Will this uptick in the demand for daily necessities drive businesses to invest and banks to lend? The answer is probably no. Why? Because we don't produce anything anymore. Banks and businesses require a minimum rate of return (adjusted for risk) on their investments (net of interest costs) and right now there is pathetically little reason for anyone to lend because they can't get the minimum return. The bottom line is that there are trillions of dollars on the sidelines waiting to get back into the game, but because the risk is so high nothing is moving.

If Obama is the great communicator he has to convince the world to invest more in areas of perhaps only modest returns but with less risk, save more and consume less. This is usually the tough prescription given to failed states in the third world to get them back into the good graces of the IMF or the World Bank.

Glenn,

What is your point? Should we be isolationists again? Everybody around the world wants Obama to be fully "engaged" not less engaged, so I get the opposite sense than what this article suggests. The corollary thought is that the price for US involvement in any new diplomacy is the ultimate threat of US intervention, so we go around, and around, and around again in little circles and nothing gets accomplished. The lefty alternative is that the US can never be trusted with bilateral negotiations because that usually is the same as "imperialism" to use a very lefty term. The lefties want huge international forums where nothing is accomplished but everybody gets their say and that translates into "progress". Progress is usually glacial at such forums, but US elections are held every 4 years and Obama doesn't have 25 years to spare.

Let's take it a step further. As Obama withdraws the US from Iraq in 16 months, he must prevent Iranian intrusion into Iraqi affairs, or all bets are off. Does he use diplomacy, economic sanctions or the threat of US intervention to make Iran stand down? So here we go again. Your beloved Obama is about betray the hard left worldview and begin stepping on lots of toes with US kicking more butt in the Middle East because of his "urgency of now"