Presidential Rating

[Saul]

Z

[Teresa]

I gave him an "F" as he watered down health care to where it was a kick in the behind and a slap in the face.  The American people want Single-Payer Universal Health Care as PROVED buy its passage twice in California.

He promised to get us out of Iraq and now we are in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  And NOBODY is going after Osa Ben Ladin and the entire al-Qaeda network.  al-Qaeda, which is a terrorist organization that BELONGS to no country, must be smoked out and brought down.  The various Arab wars are to keep our minds off of the culprits of 9/11.  We need to shut down al-Qaeda for good.  I voted for Obama because he promised to get us out of Iraq and hunt down Osa Ben Ladin and al-Qaeda. 

His stimulus packages and bailouts amounted to nothing more than corporate welfare.

His "Cash for clunkers" just put more gas gullising cars on the road.  And tons more landfill.  It was American car dealers and foreign car manufacturers who benefited.  I would rather see rebates for using mass transit.

I have no idea why I would expect Democrats to be any different than Republicans, they are just opposite sides of the same corporate coin. 

[oabmarcus]

I have no idea why I would expect Democrats to be any different than Republicans, they are just opposite sides of the same corporate coin.

really, it is like choosing between Worse and The Worst. So, unfortunately the American people have no choice but to choose the slightly less awful option of a democratic president. Chances are things won't work out, if we are in this much trouble (and no end in sight). It might takes something drastic to rally the entire nation behind the ideals of progressivism.

[Todd]

It might takes something drastic to rally the entire nation behind the ideals of progressivism.

That didn't happen in the 1870s, 1890s, or 1930s, and it will not happen at any time in the next century. 

[Brian]

This can never really be answered completely since there is no way to really know.  Economists can create contrafactual models to try to determine what may have happened had the stimulus not been passed, but such models are of questionable value.

Based on what I have seen, the answer is yes, though not well enough.  That would have required a larger outlay, and one more geared toward immediate expenditures.  Another may be required, but deficit-phobia appears to be taking a greater hold of people's minds, at least with an election coming up, so it may not materialize.

Of course, on a long-view historical level, the only way we'll ever know is by visiting an alternate universe with no stimulus. In the short-term, we can only ask: is the economy doing better? And the answers are as crude as they've ever been.

F for suing Arizona over the immigration law.

Shows ya how much tastes differ. If suing Arizona was the only issue, I'd give him an A.

That didn't happen in the 1870s, 1890s, or 1930s, and it will not happen at any time in the next century. 

Ah, I wish Theodore were President again.

[Todd]

Ah, I wish Theodore were President again.

Yes, the glories of unabashed imperialism.

[karlhenning]

. . . as PROVED buy it's passage . . . .

Cannot believe you claim to be a writer.

[Gurn Blanston]

Cannot believe you claim to be a writer.

I must be a musician; I can play CD's...



----------------
Now playing:
The Kuijken String Quartet - Hob 03 56 pt 1 'The 7 Last Words' for String Quartet - Sonata VII: Largo

[oabmarcus]

Yes, the glories of unabashed imperialism.

that statement makes no sense, it was a different time back then politically. But, economically we were in a very similar quagmire. America was also dominated by huge corporations running wild without any regulation(which eventually lead to the crash).

I think a president like Theodore Roosevelt would be an ideal candidate. Unfortunately, even a moderate to right politician like Obama is being accused of being a "Socialist". Anyone with remotely progressive ideals will be labeled by the big propaganda machine of the rich oligarchs like Fox news, to be "left extremist". So, if even the 2nd coming of Teddy exists, and runs for office. he will never be elected as president in the current political climate. Which is a conclusion that I am very much disappointed and saddened by. America's troubles of today is not never going to be solved by politicians you see today in the capitol hill. They don't work for the people, they work for big corporations, and they could care less about taking America forward.

[drogulus]

     I gave Obama an A. That's because when people look back on his accomplishments they will not compare him to Bush II or Clinton, but to FDR, LBJ and perhaps Reagan. I also generally approve of the bills he has signed, however much I might have wished for something stronger, as with the health care bill where a strong public option would have provided a check on the natural rapacity of private insurers. Still, as with financial reform the choice is not between the merely good and perfection, so I'll take the good.

[oabmarcus]

     I gave Obama an A. That's because when people look back on his accomplishments they will not compare him to Bush II or Clinton, but to FDR, LBJ and perhaps Reagan. I also generally approve of the bills he has signed, however much I might have wished for something stronger, as with the health care bill where a strong public option would have provided a check on the natural rapacity of private insurers. Still, as with financial reform the choice is not between the merely good and perfection, so I'll take the good.

that's like grading the class on a curve based on the lowest score in the class. Everyone gets a 4.0! horray! where were you when i was in college?

[oabmarcus]

grades that should be given based on different political beliefs:

Ultra Conservative Grade: F
Teabaggers and fundamentalist Christians.
   
"Obama is a socialist, nazi, he is coming to get our guns, and, uh.. did i mention he is black? he is black!! ahhh, sky is falling down!!!"

Typical Conservative Grade: F (on the outside) Grade :B+ (in their mind)
Boehner and McConnell types

"Obama is a pushover. Does everything we ask him to do, how can you not like the guy."

Moderate Democrat/Republican but in name Grade: A-
People like Blanche Lincoln and  Evan Bayh. Or any other democrat who really works for the Wall Street

Typical democrat Grade: B+
e.g. Dodd, and people who think that the legislation we passed under Obama are "sweeping" and "powerful".

Progressive democrat: D
Al Franken, and Alan Grayson, and everyone else who actually pays attention to the news, who is also reasonable and distrust what the mainstream media is telling everybody.

[DavidRoss]

Ah, I wish Theodore were President again.

I believe history will concur with those of us who give Obama an unequivocal "F."

He seems like a nice enough guy, but he's in way over his head and his extreme narcissism prevents learning.  One thing Hilary was right about during the campaign:  the White House is no place for OJT.  Of course, there's a certain amount of OJT in that position for everyone, even those with significant experience in executive leadership roles, but to put someone in that position who has never even managed as much as a Pizza Hut was effin' INSANE.

Presidents are traditionally judged according to several measures, usually including: (1) Success or failure in enacting their agenda; (2) the quality of their appointments; (3) crisis response; (4) foreign policy accomplishments; (5) leadership convincing the nation to support their vision and policies; and (6) the net effect of their stewardship--is the nation better off because of them?

During the campaign, Obama repeatedly sidestepped efforts to pin him down on his specific policy priorities if elected, however two broad priorities emerged down the homestretch: (1) Getting the economy back on track, and (2) bridging the partisan divide tearing our nation apart.  There were a number of other broad promises made, like keeping corporate lobbyists out of high public posts; unprecedented transparency in government with no backroom deals; vetoing earmarks and other legislative pork; making the full text of proposed legislation available with plenty of time for legislators and the public to study it and voice their opinions before passage into law; and other assurances of ending Washington "business as usual."

Then, in his first post-inaugural address to a special joint session of Congress in Feb, one month after assuming office, he spelled out the full set priorities constituting his agenda as President:

Now is the time to act boldly and wisely — to not only revive this economy but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jump-start job creation, restart lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that's what I'd like to talk to you about tonight.

The complete text of the speech is reproduced here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101117656

By now it is painfully clear--at least to all but the most partisan Democrats--that he has failed on all counts...and on such a grand scale that that the buoyant optimism greeting his inauguration has, in most quarters, turned to cynicism, distrust, despair, and disgust so widespread that his party now stands a very good chance of losing the control of Congress that they've enjoyed for the past four years.

Instead of first seeking to stabilize the financial sector and get credit flowing again to spark the economy and stem the bloodletting of lost jobs, he abdicated that responsibility to Pelosi and Reid's viciously partisan Congress and their pathetic, pork-laden "Stimulus Bill" that offered too little, too late, and at too great a public expense.  His focus on playing the blame game of class warfare, the guessing game of his and Congress's tax policies, and the uncertainties of their threatened financial "reform," have all contributed to continuing instability of markets and a weak economy and continuing joblessness far worse than even his own projections.

Instead of getting down to business and taking care of first things first--the economic meltdown--Obama spent most of his first year in office pushing Congress to pass the health care "reform" that he hoped would be his legacy.  Unfortunately, in ramming their ill-conceived and ill-timed health care bill down the throats of an unwilling citizenry, he also spent virtually all of his political capital and demonstrated that his promises of ending Washington business as usual were just expedient lies to get himself elected.  The enormity of this failure, and his poor judgment in prioritizing it over stabilizing the economy, have virtually assured the failure of his other stated goals, for it has cost him the faith and trust and good will of the nation, and will cost him the majorities in Congress he will need to enact his agenda.

So here's the scorecard on his major promises/goals:

(1) "Revive the economy" -- F, for taking his eye off the ball at the crucial time and for creating a climate of uncertainty that has prolonged the recession and hindered recovery.

(2) "Build a new foundation for lasting prosperity" -- F, for pushing massive deficit financing of ill-timed and ineffective expenditures that extend unfunded liabilities while creating unsustainable new entitlements and assuring a looming fiscal disaster in the years ahead.

(3) "Jump-start job creation" -- F, a failure so complete that no explanation is necessary

(4) "Restart lending" -- F, another complete and obvious failure

(5) "Invest" in energy, health care, and education -- F, because his health care reform is "reform" in name only, expanding the same bad practices responsible for US health care already being so overpriced and inefficient...and because his tactics and strategy in pursuing this were so egregiously arrogant and partisan and contrary to all his promises that he torpedoed his own Presidency and thereby assured the failure of his other major policy goals.

(6) "Make hard choices to bring our deficit down" -- F, Mr. Obama's own projections call for unprecedented deficits over several years that will double the national debt during his hoped-for two terms in office, adding nearly $10 trillion if things go according to his own overly optimistic projections.  So far he has shown no stomach for making the kind of hard choices he promised.

And, finally, regarding post-partisan reform of Washington "business as usual"  -- F!  Mr. Obama is the most brazenly partisan President in my lifetime, having been engaged in demonization and blame of the opposition party from his first day in office, offering "bi-partisanship" that amounts to "I have a super-majority in Congress so get on the bus or get run over!" and his promises of transparency, of no lobbyists in his government, and otherwise reforming Washington have proven no more than hot air.

As far as the other criteria by which history evaluates Presidents, I think it's clear that his appointments have been mediocre at best, his first response in a crisis is to look for someone else to blame, his actions internationally have undermined his own goals (creating an untenable and unwinable situation in Afghanistan, possibly encouraging war with North Korea, for starters), he has alienated the majority of voters and sabotaged his own leadership and policies, and based on the economic outfall alone his stewardship appears likely to leave the nation much worse, not better off, than it was when he took office.

All in all, a solid F...and a bloody shame, because already he's outdone his predecessor by squandering an even greater opportunity.  The ancient Greeks had a word for it:  hubris.

[Bulldog]

All in all, a solid F...and a bloody shame, because already he's outdone his predecessor by squandering an even greater opportunity.  The ancient Greeks had a word for it:  hubris.

Don't forget the F for bowing to other people.  I once saw him bow on TV to Pelosi of all people.  Why does he do that?

[oabmarcus]

I believe history will concur with those of us who give Obama an unequivocal "F."

He seems like a nice enough guy, but he's in way over his head and his extreme narcissism prevents learning.  One thing Hilary was right about during the campaign:  the White House is no place for OJT.  Of course, there's a certain amount of OJT in that position for everyone, even those with significant experience in executive leadership roles, but to put someone in that position who has never even managed as much as a Pizza Hut was effin' INSANE.

Presidents are traditionally judged according to several measures, usually including: (1) Success or failure in enacting their agenda; (2) the quality of their appointments; (3) crisis response; (4) foreign policy accomplishments; (5) leadership convincing the nation to support their vision and policies; and (6) the net effect of their stewardship--is the nation better off because of them?

During the campaign, Obama repeatedly sidestepped efforts to pin him down on his specific policy priorities if elected, however two broad priorities emerged down the homestretch: (1) Getting the economy back on track, and (2) bridging the partisan divide tearing our nation apart.  There were a number of other broad promises made, like keeping corporate lobbyists out of high public posts; unprecedented transparency in government with no backroom deals; vetoing earmarks and other legislative pork; making the full text of proposed legislation available with plenty of time for legislators and the public to study it and voice their opinions before passage into law; and other assurances of ending Washington "business as usual."

Then, in his first post-inaugural address to a special joint session of Congress in Feb, one month after assuming office, he spelled out the full set priorities constituting his agenda as President:The complete text of the speech is reproduced here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101117656

By now it is painfully clear--at least to all but the most partisan Democrats--that he has failed on all counts...and on such a grand scale that that the buoyant optimism greeting his inauguration has, in most quarters, turned to cynicism, distrust, despair, and disgust so widespread that his party now stands a very good chance of losing the control of Congress that they've enjoyed for the past four years.

Instead of first seeking to stabilize the financial sector and get credit flowing again to spark the economy and stem the bloodletting of lost jobs, he abdicated that responsibility to Pelosi and Reid's viciously partisan Congress and their pathetic, pork-laden "Stimulus Bill" that offered too little, too late, and at too great a public expense.  His focus on playing the blame game of class warfare, the guessing game of his and Congress's tax policies, and the uncertainties of their threatened financial "reform," have all contributed to continuing instability of markets and a weak economy and continuing joblessness far worse than even his own projections.

Instead of getting down to business and taking care of first things first--the economic meltdown--Obama spent most of his first year in office pushing Congress to pass the health care "reform" that he hoped would be his legacy.  Unfortunately, in ramming their ill-conceived and ill-timed health care bill down the throats of an unwilling citizenry, he also spent virtually all of his political capital and demonstrated that his promises of ending Washington business as usual were just expedient lies to get himself elected.  The enormity of this failure, and his poor judgment in prioritizing it over stabilizing the economy, have virtually assured the failure of his other stated goals, for it has cost him the faith and trust and good will of the nation, and will cost him the majorities in Congress he will need to enact his agenda.

So here's the scorecard on his major promises/goals:

(1) "Revive the economy" -- F, for taking his eye off the ball at the crucial time and for creating a climate of uncertainty that has prolonged the recession and hindered recovery.

(2) "Build a new foundation for lasting prosperity" -- F, for pushing massive deficit financing of ill-timed and ineffective expenditures that extend unfunded liabilities while creating unsustainable new entitlements and assuring a looming fiscal disaster in the years ahead.

(3) "Jump-start job creation" -- F, a failure so complete that no explanation is necessary

(4) "Restart lending" -- F, another complete and obvious failure

(5) "Invest" in energy, health care, and education -- F, because his health care reform is "reform" in name only, expanding the same bad practices responsible for US health care already being so overpriced and inefficient...and because his tactics and strategy in pursuing this were so egregiously arrogant and partisan and contrary to all his promises that he torpedoed his own Presidency and thereby assured the failure of his other major policy goals.

(6) "Make hard choices to bring our deficit down" -- F, Mr. Obama's own projections call for unprecedented deficits over several years that will double the national debt during his hoped-for two terms in office, adding nearly $10 trillion if things go according to his own overly optimistic projections.  So far he has shown no stomach for making the kind of hard choices he promised.

And, finally, regarding post-partisan reform of Washington "business as usual"  -- F!  Mr. Obama is the most brazenly partisan President in my lifetime, having been engaged in demonization and blame of the opposition party from his first day in office, offering "bi-partisanship" that amounts to "I have a super-majority in Congress so get on the bus or get run over!" and his promises of transparency, of no lobbyists in his government, and otherwise reforming Washington have proven no more than hot air.

As far as the other criteria by which history evaluates Presidents, I think it's clear that his appointments have been mediocre at best, his first response in a crisis is to look for someone else to blame, his actions internationally have undermined his own goals (creating an untenable and unwinable situation in Afghanistan, possibly encouraging war with North Korea, for starters), he has alienated the majority of voters and sabotaged his own leadership and policies, and based on the economic outfall alone his stewardship appears likely to leave the nation much worse, not better off, than it was when he took office.

All in all, a solid F...and a bloody shame, because already he's outdone his predecessor by squandering an even greater opportunity.  The ancient Greeks had a word for it:  hubris.

What a post! There is not a word there that I disagree with. Republicans, conservatives and democrats should read this post, and digest everything.

[Teresa]

Cannot believe you claim to be a writer.

Thanks I fixed the grammatical error ". . . as PROVED buy its passage . . . ."

I never said I was perfect and I depend on spell check quite heavily, finding grammatical errors is harder though. 

I recently wrote an article on my blog of the problem of it and it's.  After using it's as a possessive for five decades it may take several more to use its as a possessive instead.  Old habits die hard, especially since all other possessives use a apostrophe.

Off Topic: learned something new today, I have been using it's incorrectly.

I have been using It's as a possessive, I discovered today that is incorrect, it should be Its.  I have done a search and think I have found all the incorrect usages on my two forums and four blogs.  If not let me know, thanks!

it's |its|
contraction of
• it is : it's my fault.
• it has : it's been a hot day.

its |its|
possessive adjective
belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified : turn the camera on its side | he chose the area for its atmosphere.
• belonging to or associated with a child or animal of unspecified sex : a baby in its mother's womb.

USAGE
Its is the possessive form of : it ( : the dog licked its paw), while it's is the contraction of : it is ( : look, it's a dog licking its paw) or : it has ( : It's been too long). The apostrophe in it's never denotes a possessive. The confusion is at least partly understandable since other possessive forms (singular nouns) do take an apostrophe + s, as in :the girl's bike or : the president's smile.

[Teresa]

I must be a musician; I can play CD's...

Sorry that does not qualify, can you play any musical instruments?

[greg]

I fail to see any grammatical error here ". . . as PROVED buy it's passage . . . .", can you please point it out?  Thanks in advance.

You mean "as proven by its passage?"

[Teresa]

You mean "as proven by its passage?"

Thanks already fixed, I have written an article about this strange word that uses a possesive without an apostrophe which to me is one of the most bizarre things I have ever discovered in the English Language. 

Off Topic: learned something new today, I have been using it's incorrectly.

apostrophe 1 |əˈpästrəfē|
noun
a punctuation mark ( ' ) used to indicate either possession e.g., Harry's book; boys's coats) or the omission of letters or numbers (e.g., can't; he's; class of '99).

ITS breaks this rule, I imagine in order not to confuse it with it is?   

[drogulus]

that's like grading the class on a curve based on the lowest score in the class. Everyone gets a 4.0! horray! where were you when i was in college?

      No, because it isn't a test where you can get all the right answers. It's real life, where everything is on a curve. Have you ever heard that politics is the art of compromise? On that basis Obama has been one of the best Presidents for 2 years we've ever had. It's possible that the rest of his time will be barren as the Lilliputians tie him up. That won't matter much.

     Oh, and who is it that gets a 4.0 on a curve? Bush? Clinton? Bush I? No, Obama gets a 4.0 because he ranks with the best. I don't know why this is so hard to see, if it is hard. It will be pretty easy to see in a few years when all the irrelevant chat is forgotten (I'm forgetting it now).