"D +" at best.  He speaks out of both sides of his mouth and I no longer believe a word he says.

IMO I would like to see the Democrats keep a very slim majority in both houses.  So slim of a majority that the attack dogs will be praying to Lieberman for forgiveness.

This would allow the Republicans to be in opposition until the next big election and still be strong enough to block anything.

Let the hard left get so discredited that maybe the American people will not want to go there again for a long long time.  But let’s just hope that the Right wing Religious Social Conservatives don't fill in the void and make things even worse.

 

C+

His presidency so far was more dissapointing to the extreme left than to me. He became a realist in many ways. His speech in Oslo was awesome (except that he failed to acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq was one of the wars he was referring to, even though he was against it).

His segregationist position on Jerusalem and the West-Bank disappoints me (I am against segregation) and I don't think he knows what he is talking about regarding the Middle-East. But then he doesn't do anything, so that's fine.

I don't like the fact that he keeps betraying and insulting the US' most valuable allies (Poland, the UK, even Germany to a degree) and I think it is embarrassing and a moral failure that he doesn't do anything about Africa at all. George Bush visited African countries often and his administration brokered two peace treaties to end civil wars in Africa. He also increased aid and finally put some focus on Africa. Obama has completely ignored Africa, apparently thinking that being part African is enough.

I am glad you bumped this Nitro or I may have never seen this one.  As to the original article, I find myself looking at 2010 as kind of a macabre test of the hypothesis on 1994. IN that year, you will recall, the republicans had a very strong leader in Newt Gingrich and it is generally accepted that he led them to victory.  I have my reservations that he did (and that it was not just a reaction to the first Billary years).

in 2010, we will see.  There is no single strong leader on the right.  If the results are different, then we can probably infer that indeed Newt did lead the way with his Contract for America.  If the results are somewhat the same (I like Lee1776's scenario), then the "Newt" effect is minimalized.

As for it saving Obama (republican Victory)?  No.  As much as I dislike Clinton, I do acknowledge he was a very shrewd politician.  1994 saved him from himself (but mostly from Hillary) and allowed him to at least not trash the nation.  Obama does not have the experience, temprement, intelligence or personality to learn from his mistakes.  instead of saving it, the loss of control will only push him farther into a radical agenda.  He has no personal responsibility, and so that will be his modis operandi for everything (it already is - although getting stale - Bush has been gone a year now).  For us old timers, he will make Carter look decent.

Lastly, as for the grade, sorry Leauki, I have to disagree.  My grade is a solid D (I also noted he said "I" 38 times in his Oslo speech - great one!  Yea, right).  But my grade is based upon what I expected from him, and how he performed (isn't that how grades are supposed to work?).  For the most part I expected exactly what he would do.  If he had lived up to that, he would have gotten a solid C (average).  However, he failed in 2 key areas to even live up to my minimal expectations.  His pettiness (going after talk radio, Fox, and anyone else that did not recite him chapter and verse - while that may make him feel good - vengence and all, it is hardly what one would expect from a world leader.  At least not a competant one.), and his narcisism.  His election was historic!  And he should be proud, but then get off it and actually accomplish something.  instead, nothing is his fault, everyone is conspiring against him, and he never makes a mistake.  I, I, I, I, I - even his supporters are getting tired of hearing that word coming form Mr. Teleprompter.

The only reason he does not get an F is because I do so want him to hang on for 3 more years.  The only thing worse than an Obama Presidency is a Biden one.

Thanks to all for responding. As I said earlier, my intent with this blog is to document factors that will impact the 2010 election, positive or negatively depending on your view point, in one location. I invite anyone (liberal and conservative) to comment. We'll try to keep this event related, without personal attacks. Although opinions are desired as much as factual information. I'm going to moderate, so I'll try to keep my opinion out of this, however I may play devils advocate to get a poster to elaborate further. Maybe some political history students will find this information useful in the future.

Lee, that may very well happen if Republicans don't vocalize a message soon that resonates with the public. Can they expect to ride into victory on anti-Democrat sentiment alone?

Interesting. Do you think Howard Dean, considered far left by some, will fuel this? He has been recently recommending not passing the health care bill, stating it does not go far enough.

 

Leauki, I keep hearing about the honeymoon being over with Independents, but you brought up a good point about the far-left. Do you think they will go as far as forsaking the moderate Democrats seeking re-election in the up-coming election? Perhaps alternative candidates? Or will they just toe the party line in the end? 

Interesting. We all know about his Cairo speech, the opinions with settlements in Israel controlled areas, and policy toward Iran. I think we can safely assume most persons of the Jewish faith are apprehensive to some degree, but do you think his actions are buying him political capital with the Arab nations? Prices at the pump will affect elections.

Yet many outside (and inside) the US seem to captivated still by Obama. Do you think this trend is fading? Will Copenhagen bolster his worldwide support?

No problem Doc. I too find a lot of similarities between 1994 and 2010. Of course their are some caveats, such as the war and recession. What will make this different is the playing field. In 08, Obama enjoyed unprecedented support of the media and youth, something that was missing in 94. I wonder if that same enthusiasm will carry over in 10 and ultimately 12.

I personally don't think that's imperative for 2010, but will be shortly afterward for 2013. I feel many people got burnt out on the long campaign cycle leading up to 2008. It definitely did not help Hillary, and IMO snatch the victory right out beneath her. The big game always attracts the most hunters.  I take it your not a big Newt fan. Any predictions who the front runner might be? Do you think potential candidates might be laying low to minimize exposure to the firing line?

I found this very interesting Doc. If I have this correct, you believe that a 2010 Republican sweep would just make Obama dig his heels in deeper? If so, do you believe that it is all him or that he is getting bad advice? I have to say in every politician I've see is a built in survival device, so I'm not sure I agree with you on this point. I think a Republican win will shift him closer to the center. This will be something to watch,  I think that is a bold prediction on your part.

Yes, I think that as long as there is a demand not to vote Democrats.  There should be enough discontent to bring the Republicans (with some Conservative Independents also) short of a majority.

The Republicans at this time are so unorganized; they will not be able to sweep into power like they did in 94.

I hope so.  The Communist and Socialist have been in hiding as Democrats for the last 20 years.  Now is the time they have been awaiting for.  Let them protest openly in the American streets like they are doing in Copenhagen today.  That way the people will be able to see how scary and messed up they really are.

It is ironic that the Communist are protesting in Copenhagen to protect the earth, since it will take generations to fix all the polution that Comunism caused in Russia and China.

I agree with you, and think perhaps you misunderstood my point a little.  My point was if republicans do not need a strong leader in 2010, does that then say that Newt was just an opportunist, and not the catalyst for 94? (I personally like Newt and his philosophy).

And I agree with 2012.  Obama may be the worst president ever (and can be), but without a strong leader he will win re-election.  As for who that leader will be - I have no clue.  I know that they will have to be twice as good as anything the democrats put up due to the MSM (and I know many are up to it), but at this point it could be Jindal, Palin, Bachman (gutsy move on her part), or some other person that has not come to the forefront yet (I think Coeburn just shot up a lot).

Both bad advice and him.  I think his advisors would love to strike the word I from the english language (even the MSM seems to be tiring of hearing it), but then they are the ones that think they can get all the socialism through because "no good crises should go to waste".  clinton triangulated and managed to hold off Newt and congress.  Obama does not have the experience to do that.  He only knows how to be a community organizer (does not help when dealing internationally, but then people are starting to see that too - the emperor has no clothes).

The irony of it is, if he was a good leader, his advisors would help him, but since he only hires sycophants, they are not going to stop telling him how pretty his clothes are, and that is not going to help him if the republicans gain control of congress.

Have you seen the recent tea party polls? Republicans are currently fairing less support than the Democrats among tea partier's (pretty remarkable since it was mostly the Dems that are blasting the movement). It should be an interesting year - 2010.

I think you have something there. I was amazed (and appalled) when Hugo Chavez blasted capitalism at Copenhagen, to the applause of those in attendance. His actions didn't surprise me, but much the rest of the worlds did. Kind of reminds me of a going out of business sale, and everyone is looking for something for nothing from the golden goose before they kill it. Looks like some opportunities to bow are fast approaching.

Wow, I did have it backward, thanks for the correction.

I believe he will be immune, no matter how bad, due to the current PC environment of the US. This could possibly be the first affirmative action president in US history, and for the that reason will never be labeled (outside of opponents) as a complete failure. I'm not suggesting that is necessarily the case, we'll see how the next three years go, but IMO can set the bar low and repel any criticism as a racial attack. We've seen this tactic used already.

Interesting point. I recently saw a piece (can't remember exactly where) that discussed Obama's key advisor's. The gist of the talk was that none of his people are doers in the respect that they have run successful businesses. Most are career politicians, volunteers, liberal thinkers and professors but little in the way of understanding or possessing the skills that are need now to create jobs, the number one concern of the people. A lopsided list of advisor's, especially in their current areas of expertise, would certainly have a detrimental effect. One (you'd hope) wouldn't rely on a lawyer when one really needs a fireman.

I too am amazed at how Chavez, Castro, Dean, and now the labor union leaders are turning on Obama.  He and his staff are so far left it is scary.  It is almost making me wonder how much farther they want him to go.

All these Communist, Socialist, and dictatorships are always putting down Capitalism.  Yet Capitalism is the only system that is bringing prosperity in this world.  If their economic systems are so much better, why are they the ones looking for hand outs at Copenhagen?

 

A question I wish more Socialists would ask themselves. I think they tend to forget, in Socialist societies there is only a little room at the top for the elitists...someone has to be the worker, now what are their chances of which category the majority of them will fall into? Is Eastern Europe the only group of people that remember this harsh history lesson?

I think the above is going to be trumped by the below.

The MSM hated Bush (they were less blatant about Reagan), and that did get the opposition close, but not enough.  The time when the MSM was king maker is over as many get their news (when they get interested - the last 8 weeks of the election) from alternate sources.  It is kind of like going to church.  People already know that the pastor is going to tell them sin is bad, so they snooze through the sermon.  Same with the MSM.  It affects those who do pay attention daily, but that is a small percentage.

You forgot rule one of liberals/leftists - they do not think.

They see the money and save "gimme".  They do not think to ask where it came from (other than to spout the standard talking points about it was stolen).

I like that one!

 

What do I rate him? Well, honestly I would have to give him two grades, one for Domestic and one for International.

Domestic: Given that he's really only focused on one major issue, failed to take any action on DADT/Gay rights, and a few other things I consider important, I would have to give him a C/C-. The biggest few things that could bump my grade for him higher is if he:

1. Gets congress to scrap the current HC bill and get one in that actually makes sense.

2. Repeals DADT, DOMA, and enourages marriage equality.

3. Adjusts the stem cell research funding so that it pushes the research of artificial stem cells.

4. Creates jobs AND lowers our deficit. (Why not split the 200 billion down the middle, half toward jobs and half toward the deficit?)

 

International: I have some issues that I feel need to be dealt with, but ultimately I would give him a B- internationally.

 

Given many of your comments lately...Pot meet Kettle. Kettle meet cluelessness.

 

~AJ

 

Unlikely...Obama needs a win...anything will do, no matter what the country really wants. Right now it is more important to him that he appears he can get something done, and not be ineffectual. Better to act and look decisive, than do nothing. Could be banking on short memories for 2012, but expect a lot of finger pointing next year in 2010. 

This is special interest and probably far down the list of most Americans at this time.

Possibly achievable at government funded facilities, but since the pharma industry had to make huge $$$ concessions to the administration to avoid the same vilification as the health insurance companies is receiving, the last thing on their minds must be to pump money into something the government might not let them profit on in the future, with the prospect of socialized medicine right around the corner. 

Isn't that what the first stimulus bill was supposed to achieve? Perhaps if it was read before the vote and not rushed through. Not a very ringing endorsement of government efficiency would you say? This model of appropriation does seem popular in Congress this year as the HC bill, with its back door deals and late night votes, makes its way through the bureaucracy.

Liberal Math: If I say I am going to spend 200b that I do not have, but then I only spend 100b that I do not have, I have lowered the deficit.  Don't you just love newspeak?

Afghanistan - (C-) He sent troops but only because he was preasured into it and on top of that he gave a date to end this "surge" that they don't want to call surge.

Health Care - (D-) The current bill has had so many ups and downs, changes and BS in such a short amount of time that it's no longer about helping the people but (as Nitro put it) it's simply so that Obama has a win under his belt.

Climate Change - (D-) All the BS that has come out lately about fudged information has been ignored by this administration. They could have at least make it seem like they are concerned about all the recent drama and try to figure out whats going on efore going forward.

Jobs - (F) His 8% limit was gone before he could say "I" and he continues to BS about creating and saving job and instead blames small business and the previous Administration for his failure to stop the job loses and his failure to promote job growth.

Foreign policy - (D-) I'm sorry's can only go so far. Instead of a strong nation we are now seen as weak and unable to stand up for what we believed in. He goes around bowing to every world leader and constantly putting this country down. How the hell did a man who hated the actions of his country become the leader of the same country is beyond me. And lets not forget his "strong diplomacy" with Iran which has them running for the hills, running to build more nuclear stations that is.

Overall he has a D- as far as I'm concerned. He gave himself a B+ because he did not want to come across as arrogant if he gave himself an A or A-. What I love the most is how his defendants claim he has not had enough time to accomplish anything yet Obama believe in the same time he accomplsihed anough to warrant a B+. Talk about not being on the same page.

Yeah, I believe that one is really frustrating this administration. Obama came into office, apologized to the world for the previous 8 years and expected everyone, including Iran, to jump on the hope and change bandwagon. Most of the world don't fall for the same touchy - feely schmoozing that many Americans like. Some country would hate us, mistrust us, or abuse our good nature even if Mother Theresa (if still alive) were president. I wonder if he gets that yet.

 

Perhaps, I cannot really agree or disagree with your opinion. i am intrigued though, why (according to republicans) Obama should be efficient on this issue, but when he took time to look over Afghanistan - he was wrong in doing so. Seems ironic, and just another moment of party talking points (brain not included).

 

As far as I, and many other american citizens, it's an issue that is paramount to our nation. If we don't hold to our founding principles, then we're full of shit and not truly the land of life, liberty, (equality)and the pursuit of happines like we say we are.

 

Perhaps, when you're talking about non-artificial stem cells - but artificial stem cells (i.e. not living) are widely considered the bridge between the sides in the ethical dispute.

Socialized medicine, just like the socilized programs average americans take for granted? Socialized medicine, like the rationing (and denial) of coverage by insurance companies? Socialism, like the taking of people's money, barely giving adequate service or product and instead lining their workers pockets?

Oh sure... \s

Disclaimer: My comments regarding socialism are sarcastic, and meant to make a point.

 

There were some congress people who read the bill, but overall - yes - neither party read the bill.

Oh please, back door deals and all that are typical politics, republican or democrat. It's nothing new, and the Republicans are by far, definitely no saints in that matter. In politics, deals are made - how do you think the 1876 election went? Or various other events in history? Not saying I'm in favor of it, because I feel that smoetimes there is a point where compromise becomes compromised, but it happens. Neither party can claim any high ground.

 

 

 

 

Um, douche, the 200B is from the stimulous bill that - i believe - the CBO said would cost less than planned. It would be money appropriated (right word?) toward lowering the deficit and creating jobs. Heh, I find it ironic that you're against putting money toward that, since that seems to be the typical republican trumpet. (Lower the deficit!!!) Oh wait, I guess we can't according to you. So your plan is we do...what?

 

 

 

To be blunt charles, and please don't take this personally: Is it "we" believe in? Or is it what you and others like you believe in? Starting false wars? Infringing on liberties? (and so on so forth) Sorry, but that is not what WE believe in.

 

~A

Well, you got to admire one thing.  Obama has Ahmadenijad, Castro, Chavez, Jiaboa and Kim agreeing with Limbaugh and Hannity!  Hoax and Chains!

American liberals love newspeak, but the rest of the world is not that stupid.  Makes you wonder just how stupid you have to be these days to be an american liberal.

What's a "false war", Alderic?

Is it any war you don't agree with or is it limited to American participation in it? (Was the Iraq war a "right war" before the invasion, when Saddam's army was still attacking Kurds? And don't misunderstand this. Whenever the inspectors were not in the country Saddam tried to get the upper hand again. Sooner or later he or one of his crazy sons would have made it.)

Or is "false war" simply an umbrella term for all wars against Arab oppressors of non-Arab peoples?






And why is in "infringing on liberties" an issue for you? Given that liberty only exists due to "false wars", I don't see how you can be against both.

Alderic, do me a favour... whenever you think "false war", I want you to look at these pictures:

(Warning! Some of these are very graphic. I cried when I saw the originals of the second series in a former prison in Iraq where they had been exhibited in a gallery.)

http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/

http://www.9neesan.com/halapja/

I want you to look at these pictures so you will know, at the time you think "false war", what Saddam was like and how Iraqis lived (and died) under his rule. I want you to remember these images whenever you say "false war", so that you will know what a monster it was whose rule you wanted to preserve.

If you can look at those pictures and can still speak of a "false war", I will be forced to remind you that you screamed bloody murder when Maine rejected gay marriage yet you call a "false war" that which made it possible for Iraqis even to start dreaming about having your problems in the future.