Presidential Rating

[Bulldog]

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.[/i]

I believe you now have what it takes to graduate from elementary school.

[Gurn Blanston]

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

Bb Baritone Horn, guitar (6 & 12 string), 4 string tenor banjo, mandolin. I was also a very decent vocalist, although I haven't been good to my voice for the last 40 years, and it's paid me back for that. 




----------------
Now playing:
The Gamerith Consort - Hob 15 09 Trio in A for Fortepiano, Violin & Cello 1st mvmt -  Adagio

[Teresa]

Bb Baritone Horn, guitar (6 & 12 string), 4 string tenor banjo, mandolin. I was also a very decent vocalist, although I haven't been good to my voice for the last 40 years, and it's paid me back for that. 

Wonderful, I never tried a wind instrument.   

I currently play A Samick LW020G Dreadnought acoustic guitar.  My first instrument was a Mandolin at age 5. I took Piano lessens when I was in 5th grade. As a teenager I played both Rhythm Guitar and Bass Guitar in a Rock Band, I had a Fender Telecaster electric and a Fender Bass with Fender Twin Reverb tubed guitar amp.

I have also tried to played Violin, Banjo, Kalimba and Harmonica, items I bought when I worked at a pawn shop.   

My singing voice is not all that great, when I was younger people said I sang and looked like Janis Joplin. 

I do not play my guitar nearly enough, I do enjoy playing though. 

[drogulus]

      June 26 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama is close to completing his top three legislative goals, even as recession- weary Americans give him some of the lowest approval ratings of his presidency.

Obama scored his latest victory yesterday as congressional negotiators approved the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. financial regulations since the Great Depression, just three months after passage of landmark health-care legislation. He signed into law one of the biggest economic-rescue efforts in U.S. history less than a month after entering the White House.

      It isn't just that he did all of these things, it's that it's the most ambitious agenda since the New Deal. Historians will care more about that than the imperfections that bother me when I contemplate how much better they could have been. Of course it depends as well on what is meant by "could have been". Could we have had a Platonically perfect bailout, or health care bill? How would that fit in with the "art of compromise" or the "art of the possible"?

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

Define "best" please.

[oabmarcus]

      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.

No, compromise is for the weak, we don't compromise with people who do all the wrong things. When the nation is fucked up as it is, you don't compromise with the factions trying to delay progress. You go all out, and hold them accountable.
And also, Barack didn't "compromise" he "gave up". Anyone on the opposition can just boss him around. Case in point: Shirly Sharrad, fox news pinch him in the arm a bit. He gives up IMMEDIATELY. That's not compromise, that's cowardice, that's a sign of poor leadership, he is not a leader, he is a loser. American people deserve better.

     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).

I think you are almost as delusional as the right wing nut-jobs. "ranks with the best"? What did Obama do in these two years? Am I blind? Tell me, what is ONE substantive thing he has done that's going to push this nation forward?

[oabmarcus]

      June 26 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama is close to completing his top three legislative goals, even as recession- weary Americans give him some of the lowest approval ratings of his presidency.

Obama scored his latest victory yesterday as congressional negotiators approved the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. financial regulations since the Great Depression, just three months after passage of landmark health-care legislation. He signed into law one of the biggest economic-rescue efforts in U.S. history less than a month after entering the White House.

      It isn't just that he did all of these things, it's that it's the most ambitious agenda since the New Deal. Historians will care more about that than the imperfections that bother me when I contemplate how much better they could have been. Of course it depends as well on what is meant by "could have been". Could we have had a Platonically perfect bailout, or health care bill? How would that fit in with the "art of compromise" or the "art of the possible"?

How come his approval ratings so low? are us Americans blind? what's going on here?

Of course it depends as well on what is meant by "could have been". Could we have had a Platonically perfect bailout, or health care bill?

Nobody asked for "perfection", I don't even know what that means in a political context. The problem is that Obama didn't even try to get tough on those legislation. He let others to water it down, and down, and finally becomes a blowjob to the health care and financial industries. He didn't get in there, and even TRY to get tough with the opposition. He just gives in, and gives in. No, American people aren't that dumb, he is not there fighting for you, he is there to cover for his own ass.

[drogulus]

Define "best" please.

     OK, I'd say most consequential. Presidents don't matter the way ideologues think, in which going in one direction is the good one and the other direction bad. There will always be course corrections in a variety of directions, some associated with the liberal and others the conservative tendency. What matters is that each President finds a path through the ideological thickets to get the good thing done, the good thing that needs to be done. Notice how all the politicians got so scared by the crisis 2 years ago that they had to abandon their preconceptions, and how you couldn't tell the left from the right? Only an emergency can produce such clear sightedness from everyone except Ron Paul at the same time. It would make a lesser man than me suspicious, so let's go find him!

     The Obama bailout differed from the Bush in some details, but the similarity was the important thing. Everyone gets very realistic when the planes about to crash. There are different ways to do a bailout or a healthcare bill, and they do matter, but what matters most is a clear sight of the problem. The point is to arrange so that it's clear that one side wants to solve the problem and the other wants to prevent it from being solved. That might not represent the original positions of all the actors (even Boehner might allow a health care bill of some sort if Obama could be denied credit for it. It would have to be a dreadful bill, but he might be willing).

     What happens is that it becomes a discovery for voters that one side really does want to apologize to BP, and to protect the insurers from the disgusting tendency of the insured to get sick. McConnell doesn't know he's in the pockets of the endless hordes of lobbyists, it just turns out that he is, and we find out the same way he does, poor fool, and Obama somehow makes it clear that while he is beholden to interests, too, that he will not allow, or the luck of the situation won't allow that to prevent him from improving the health care prospects for millions of people. You could predict that McConnell would be what he is and Obama would be the other kind, but could you predict that this time the outline of the difference would be so apparent to so many? No, like most people I expected the best intentions would not be enough, and hard work and Boy Scout virtues wouldn't do it either. But what do you know? Once in a great while something extraordinary happens, and the last couple of years will be remembered for a long time as special.

How come his approval ratings so low? are us Americans blind? what's going on here?

      I just told you what went on, and you lived through it, too, so it isn't exactly a secret.

      Ah, the polls. By all means let's get to the horse race, the great equalizer. Who do you think will win the next election? Here's a smart thing to say: I don't know.

      It's just a guess, of course, but Obama is unpopular because the recovery hasn't produced very many jobs. Historically the polls follow employment numbers pretty closely.

      Cheaping out on the stimulus produced just what economists expected. Though there is a pretended disagreement about the effects of the stimulus the real issue all along is that political will is destroyed halfway through the recovery. At first the pols fear the voters for not dealing with the crisis, and once that fear is past they fear the consequences of passing something big enough to really work.

[Josquin des Prez]

Once in a great while something extraordinary happens, and the last couple of years will be remembered for a long time as special.

You seem to be completely out of touch with reality. The country is on a meteoric descent into complete ruin, what the fuck is supposed to be so special about this last few years? Millions of Americans are still out of a job. Do you think they will be remembering those years with fondness and longing? Our economy is still collapsing, our national debt is through the roof, our military is stretched all over the planet, and all the while our national sovereignty is being eroded with each passing day. I personally give this country less then a hundred years before it turns into a third world shit hole. I guess things must look pretty different up there in planet ivory tower. Perhaps you'd like to come down here among us mere mortals every once in a while.

[Bulldog]

The voting is closed, and Obama gets a low C.  Given that the Left is very disappointed in him, Independents are abandoning him by the boat load and the Right can't tolerate him, that low C is about as high as one could expect.

Here's my projection.  Unless Obama changes the way he operates, he's toast in 2012, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs. Clinton challenge him and beat him for the Dem. nomination.

[MN Dave]

I can't stand any of these politicians. They're all so full of sh*t.

[drogulus]

You seem to be completely out of touch with reality.

     We'll see. Obama is down in the polls and he may lose the House and Senate. The recovery is slow and voters will take it out on the incumbents like they always do. That's the short run view and I agree with it. I'm paying attention to Obama's accomplishments which will be evaluated differently when there's time to consider them. I decided to give you a sneak preview of what that evaluation will be.

     

The voting is closed, and Obama gets a low C.  Given that the Left is very disappointed in him, Independents are abandoning him by the boat load and the Right can't tolerate him, that low C is about as high as one could expect.

Here's my projection.  Unless Obama changes the way he operates, he's toast in 2012, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs. Clinton challenge him and beat him for the Dem. nomination.

     I don't think she'll do that. It would spoil the narrative that has Clinton as the loyal subordinate who deserves to succeed him. She has a strong claim to the succession as things are now. Someone else may challenge him from the left (Kucinich, maybe).

[karlhenning]

Cannot believe I read that someone has written are us blind?

[DavidRoss]

I'm paying attention to Obama's accomplishments which will be evaluated differently when there's time to consider them. I decided to give you a sneak preview of what that evaluation will be.

See http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,16871.msg433684.html#msg433684

     

I don't think [Hilary will challenge Obama for the Demo nomination in 2012]. It would spoil the narrative that has Clinton as the loyal subordinate who deserves to succeed him. She has a strong claim to the succession as things are now. Someone else may challenge him from the left (Kucinich, maybe).

What narrative?  Odds are--especially if the Dems lose both houses in 2010--that she'll think her only chance of nabbing that coveted résumé-topper is to wrest the party leadership away in 2012 with a "See, I told you he was too inexperienced!" narrative.

[Franco]

I'm paying attention to Obama's accomplishments which will be evaluated differently when there's time to consider them.

Some people would see his "accomplishments" (saddling future generations with $1t debt, sowing division based on race, class, and political affiliation after promising to usher in a post-all-that administration, allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, losing the war in Afghanistan, apologizing to the world for America, and in general screwing up the Middle East) as huge failures of leadership.  But I guess you are a Democrat.

[Todd]

Here's my projection.  Unless Obama changes the way he operates, he's toast in 2012,

I think that will happen only if the economy has not improved, which is a possibility.  If the economy improves substantially, it will be hard to beat him, unless the Republicans field a very strong candidate.  I'm not sure who that would be.  Only Tim Pawlenty strikes me as electable at this time, but that may only be because I don't know enough about him.  (And do we really want a president from Minnesota?)

OK, I'd say most consequential.

I understand all of your arguments in support of Obama, I just disagree.  To compare Obama to FDR is silly.  Obama is a non-entity compared to FDR.  I'd say even when compared to TR, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, and Reagan, irrespective of what one thinks of their policies, Obama is a lesser politician, a lesser leader.  (I could throw in some earlier presidents too, but the point should be clear enough.)

Sticking with FDR, look at what he managed to do in his first term – hell, the vaunted 100 days – and compare it to Obama.  Expanding federal health care entitlements is nothing compared to creating a social security system where none existed before.  (Or creating federal involvement in health care like LBJ did.)  Passing financial regulation and a bailout is small compared to the emergency banking acts, changes to the Federal Reserve system, and ultimately Glass-Steagall, not to mention the various government programs which helped build lasting infrastructure throughout the country.  And then there's foreign policy.  Shifting troops around and improving America's image is simply not comparable to having to navigate a more isolationist America through the rough diplomatic waters of the 30s and 40s where Fascism proper threatened the Western world.  I dare say that Obama's judgment in military leaders is not quite as keen as Roosevelt's was, either.  FDR, love him or hate him, was a political titan, effective at rallying public support, and effective at smiling while crushing his opponents with a ruthless efficiency that Obama can only dream of.  History may look more favorably on Obama than we do now, but there is no way he will compare well to FDR. 

[drogulus]

     

I understand all of your arguments in support of Obama, I just disagree.  To compare Obama to FDR is silly.  Obama is a non-entity compared to FDR.  I'd say even when compared to TR, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, and Reagan, irrespective of what one thinks of their policies, Obama is a lesser politician, a lesser leader.  (I could throw in some earlier presidents too, but the point should be clear enough.)

Sticking with FDR, look at what he managed to do in his first term – hell, the vaunted 100 days – and compare it to Obama.  Expanding federal health care entitlements is nothing compared to creating a social security system where none existed before.  (Or creating federal involvement in health care like LBJ did.)  Passing financial regulation and a bailout is small compared to the emergency banking acts, changes to the Federal Reserve system, and ultimately Glass-Steagall, not to mention the various government programs which helped build lasting infrastructure throughout the country.  And then there's foreign policy.  Shifting troops around and improving America's image is simply not comparable to having to navigate a more isolationist America through the rough diplomatic waters of the 30s and 40s where Fascism proper threatened the Western world.  I dare say that Obama's judgment in military leaders is not quite as keen as Roosevelt's was, either.  FDR, love him or hate him, was a political titan, effective at rallying public support, and effective at smiling while crushing his opponents with a ruthless efficiency that Obama can only dream of.  History may look more favorably on Obama than we do now, but there is no way he will compare well to FDR. 

     You make good arguments (you didn't even mention polls!), and in the end Obama may be rated in the second rank with Truman and Eisenhower. Perhaps the way he towers over his immediate predecessors has clouded my judgment. But he is not a nonentity.

      It's too bad that the financial reform didn't contain something like a reimposition of Glass-Steagall. Then I think deification would be in order.

[Bulldog]

See http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,16871.msg433684.html#msg433684

     What narrative?  Odds are--especially if the Dems lose both houses in 2010--that she'll think her only chance of nabbing that coveted résumé-topper is to wrest the party leadership away in 2012 with a "See, I told you he was too inexperienced!" narrative.

Exactly.  2012 is her only chance to become President, and I'm confident she salivates at the thought of becoming top dog.

[Bulldog]

     
     You make good arguments (you didn't even mention polls!), and in the end Obama may be rated in the second rank with Truman and Eisenhower. Perhaps the way he towers over his immediate predecessors has clouded my judgment.

He doesn't tower over anyone when he bows.

[Brian]

Here's my projection.  Unless Obama changes the way he operates, he's toast in 2012, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs. Clinton challenge him and beat him for the Dem. nomination.

As I wrote a few pages ago, some of Obama's big policies are gambles which might start to see results by 2012. The economy's been mentioned, but election season is also when we're supposed to start pulling out of Iraq, and so on.

The problem is that there is another political party. Remember 2004: George W. Bush was a lousy president and we could tell already the ship was sinking, but the Democrats nominated John Kerry and blew their big opportunity to take control. (Not that the rest of the field was too electable. Howard Dean?)

The Republican field for 2012 looks, right now, dazzlingly bad. Bobby Jindal's nationally televised speech a couple years ago was an embarrassment; Mitt Romney's health care plan was the basis for Obama's; John McCain went from bold centrist to primordial ooze in 2008; Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels are little-known but intriguing, though Pawlenty is devoid of any charisma; Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and all the Tea Partiers are fruitcakes with no centrist appeal; Paul Ryan is too young; Jon Huntsman was cleverly sidelined by Obama into the Chinese ambassadorship to lower his profile; David Petraeus is still very seriously employed abroad.

In other words, the Republicans need one of their potential stars (Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty) to start making a good case now, or for a new star to rise up from the ranks pronto. I'll make a projection to go with yours: even if Obama's performance does not change at all from here on out, a Palin/Bachmann/Tea Party ticket nominated to oppose him would produce a decisive Democratic victory. The public hates the status quo. But as John Kerry knows, you can't beat the status quo just by existing.