I have watched Glenn Beck's program and I don't think he has a problem with Hispanics, or even a 'cosmopolitan President' as the writer puts it, it's simply about values.

The values of middle-America are good. They are very giving - the US gives half of all world aid - not bad for one country, and an apparently greedy one at that.

Want to find rich people who don't care? The wealthy Arab states. Unless you're fighting in a jihad that is, then they'll throw money at you.

Obama is a hopeless President. His policies are ineffective banter, just like our very own Kevin Rudd - who ran the first Presidential campaign in Australian history.

Obama gets away with it because the liberal media are racist and hold him - because of his colour - to a lower standard.

Left-wing people are racist. They look the other way when coloured people make mistakes, look how paternal the left are here towards Aboriginies for example.

Obama is on the nose because he lied to the American people.
He promised post-racialism, bipartisanship and transparency.
He delivered exactly the opposite, plus an unhealthy and unwanted dose of radicalism.
The 73% vote against the Obamacare mandate in Missouri reflects the public opposition to his policies.
He was aided and abetted in his deception by the JournoListas of the mainstream media, the for-now-disbanded cabal of enablers who sanitised his past and sang his praises.
The majority of Americans are essentially conservative.
The only positive legacy of Obama is that many Americans are now beginning to recognise the lunacy of liberalism.
A seriously negative legacy of Obama is the appointment of his ideological clone Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
The only real question remaining about Obama is whether he is a hopelessly naïve and inept but well-meaning idealist or whether he is deliberately trying to destroy America.

I'm not particularly a fan of Glynn Beck, but his intended assessment of Obama's popularity is more or less spot on (though I agree his assessment of the World Cup's popularity in the US might be a bit off). The many historic examples of socialism simply not working are too prolifigate for middle Americans (read: working Americans who are not academics or journalists)to ignore. The current crisis only emphasized this fact. Those countries moving toward socialism suffered the most (the US, Greece, et al) and the ones moving away from socialism actually prospered (China, India). Whether it is true or not, Obama is percieved by middle America as a socialist, and indeed, his policies seem to point in that direction. He has also failed to keep numerous promises that have alienated the far left and the youngest of his supporters.

As for the Hispanics in America, I wonder how Australian's would react to a million plus illegal immigrants coming across their borders every year. Given recent tirades over a few hundred boat people, I'm guessing not nearly as well as the American's have. It is common for liberals to write conservative American's problems with Hispanic immigration off as prejudice, but that is, at best, an oversimplification. The costs to infrastructure (such as schools, hospitals, even roads) being used by tens of millions of illegal non tax paying immigrants, the terrorism related border security issues, and the burden on an already saturated job market point to other less nefarious reasons why American's want their borders secured. Obama, meanwhile, refuses to enforce current laws in an attempt to secure the Hispanic vote.

The liberal media painted Obama as a messiah of sorts. This might have gotten him elected, but it's a hard title to live up to, and it's no wonder that he has fallen short. He was never loved by the conservatives, and the over zealous press placed liberals expectations at a level where diappointment was inevitable. Almost certainly, we are seeing Obama's first and last term.

Obama might well be on the nose right now, but then when the
trailer park trash gets psyched up by Fox TV, we are hardly going
to land up with informed opinion.

Much of the public are still in denial, that it was their vote
for Bush not once but twice, which is responsible for the economic
calamity that Obama faced when he took over. Expectations that
Obama could fix it all overnight, were of course wrong, but that
tells us more about the average punters knowledge of economics, then
about the fact wether Obama is a good or bad president.

IHMO he is a very good one, but he was dealt a disasterous hand.
Its going to take years, not weeks or months, to turn America
around.

Blaming the president is the easy cop out for many Americans.
Its a bit like saying "God did it", to understand the world.
That does not mean that it's correct.

They say that people get the politicians that they deserve and
that people need pain to learn. Perhaps Americans haven't yet
experienced enough pain to learn and need a disaster like Palin
as Prez, to show them what a real disaster can be. She
can drag the nation down with her and go and start a few
wars somewhere.

Buttonbright,
Obama not only "refuses to enforce current laws in an attempt to secure the Hispanic vote", he hopes to create a vast new Democrat-voting bloc by granting amnesty and, ultimately, voting rights to illegal immigrants. Apart from the obvious drain on healthcare and social security that you mention, cash transfers back to families in Mexico represent that countrys second biggest source of "export income". This double-dipping by tens of millions of illegal immigrants must have profound effects on US taxpayers who rightly question why they are working and paying increasing taxes to support law-breakers from Mexico.
Obama’s answer is to allow “sanctuary cities” to deliberately flout immigration law whilst suing Arizona for attempting to enforce the immigration laws that he fails to uphold, in stark contradiction to his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the US.

Yabby,
Your first-sentence reference to trailer park trash is an early indicator of the level of objectivity you bring to the debate. How is it that the so-called egalitarian left is so contemptuous of those who occupy the lowest socio-economic strata?
Don’t answer, I think we’ve all worked it out.
Obama and his millionaire cronies are the good guys because they’re on the left, even though Michelle spends tens of thousands of tax-payer dollars per day playing Marie Antoinette in Spain while unemployment keeps going up.
Trailer park trash are the bad guys because they must be on the right because they watch Fox TV.

The Democrats have had majorities in both the congress and senate since 2006, making George W. Bush almost a lame-duck president for his last two years.
For how many more years will the Democrats and their ignorant apologists continue to blame Bush?
Furthermore, Obama’s deficit-spending makes Bush look positively tight-fisted.
Your “humble opinion” that Obama is a very good president is becoming an increasingly minority view, as the American people begin to realise that they were duped by Mr Hopey Changey and his fourth estate.

*is an early indicator of the level of objectivity you bring to the debate*

Not so Proxy, its about the level of objectivity shown by Fox TV
and the gullibility of the poor, when Rupert pushes their
emotional buttons, rather then provide high quality information.

In other words, even if millions of Americans are duped by
Fox TV and similar, that does not make Obama a bad president.

*Obama and his millionaire cronies are the good guys because they’re on the left*

They are hardly of the left. They just show a hint of balance between
some social justice and economic progress. Being on the left of
Sarah Palin, hardly makes them socialists.

*Furthermore, Obama’s deficit-spending makes Bush look positively tight-fisted*

When Clinton left office, the budget was balanced, there was
a surplus, the economy was doing ok. Eight years later, the
economy was in the gutter, the trillion $ deficit was already
there, the nation was on the verge of dragging us all into
a global depression.

Watch a bit of Bloomberg TV and you'll find that many of America's
brightest minds agree that a global depression would have been
a disaster not just for the US, but for all of us. Obama was
left a choice between a rock and a hard place.

To now criticise the fact that his administration took steps
to avoid that global depression and a complete collapse of the
global economy, is pure igorance on your part and shows
your political bias. A bit of reasoned thinking would help.