Kraichgauer wrote:
Magdalena wrote:
artrat wrote:
abacacus wrote:
He is inefficient.
For the sake of disclosure, I am about as liberal as it gets.
seconded!
I too would use the word "inefficient" to summarily describe Obama.
But has any president scored particularly high in just his first term?
Remember, had Lincoln not won a second term, he would have been remembered as overseeing a corrupt administration, and commanding an army that rarely seemed to be able to win. But instead, Lincoln is our greatest president, who had saved the union, and had saved America from it's "original sin" of slavery.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Does it matter? Hindsight is, as they say, 20/20. Bush (arguably) didn't do well in his first term, but he was re-elected, and he did terrible in his second term. The point is that presidents should perform more efficiently and effectively than Obama is performing now. And if they aren't, then a candidate who is more efficient and effective should replace the sitting president. To re-elect a president just because he *might* do better in his second term, is sheer madness.
The quandary here is that, as lousy as Obama has done, he's really the best candidate out there at present. Ron Paul was said to be a good option, but on most issues other than troop withdrawals, he subscribes to a vision of reality that me and most other people don't think is very... realistic.
I was especially displeased with the several instances of Obama surrendering to Wall Street, but anytime I want to kick him out for that reason, I think of how very likely it would be, under a Republican, that we would see ten times as many instances of surrendering to Wall Street than we ever saw out of Obama.