Posted on 09/06/2012 5:15:03 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
On a backpacking trip once, I slipped on a steep ice sheet and began sliding uncontrollably toward the edge of a cliff overhanging an icy river.
Luckily, my son pulled me to safety with his trekking pole. Am I better off now than I was when I was sliding toward the abyss? Duh!
That’s a useful starting point in any assessment of President Obama. In many ways, his first term has been disappointing: the economy remains weak, housing is a mess and, for a man with a silver tongue, he has been a wretched communicator. Then again, we’re incomparably better off than when we were tumbling toward another Great Depression.
With that in mind, let me offer a first-term report card for Obama.
ECONOMY: B
In January 2009, the month Obama took office, America lost 818,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was the biggest monthly loss in six decades, and many feared a complete banking collapse.
Obama rescued the banking and auto sectors. Independent estimates suggest his stimulus may have saved or created more than three million jobs, and an anemic recovery began. The Economist magazine, conservative by nature, assessed: “His handling of the crisis and recession were impressive.”
However, the administration blew it with overoptimistic comments that shredded its credibility. It was also too generous to banks in negotiating their rescues, and it often seemed oblivious to resentment of crony capitalism, and to broader issues of economic inequality.
Worst of all, Obama dropped the ball on housing, betraying struggling homeowners. Far fewer mortgages have been modified or refinanced under administration programs than expected, and some Americans have lost their homes as a result, exacerbating inequality. Underwater mortgages have been a drag on the entire economy.
EDUCATION: A-
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Grades on other issues...
OTHER DOMESTIC ISSUES: B+
Obama gets credit for ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in our armed forces.
FOREIGN POLICY: B+
Obama brought troops home from Iraq and took out Osama bin Laden. He was superb in providing bold leadership in Libya, at a time when so many American experts were saying that the intervention wouldn’t work.
COMMUNICATION: F
A president’s central job is not policy wonk but national team captain. There Obama failed us. He has not made the case for his policies, nor has he comforted the nation as Franklin Roosevelt did in his fireside chats.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE COMPLETE ARTICLE...
“ECONOMY: B “
Talk about grade inflation!
Obama says the problem is he hasn’t given enough speeches.
I’d give Kristoff an F for intelligence and and F- for common sense.
Way too generous
Since Obama’s messaging is framed almost entirely by a lapdog media, isn’t this guy indicting himself with that “F”?
Clearly Kristoff is demonstrating “the soft bigotry of low expectations” of a black president.
No way would he rate a white president with the same (lack of) performance in the same manner...
I think Obama did a great job of earning his degree in B.S.
Typical liberal mindset.If people disagree with you it must be because they don’t yet understand what you’re saying so you need to communicate the message differently,perhaps by lowering down the level of complexity. It never across in their mind the possibility that people understand completely what you’re saying. They just simply disagree or don’t like it.
Kristoff led a witchhunt against an innocent man, at least temporarily ruining his career (I don't know if he ever got back on track). Kristoff thought the guy was a bad guy because he had spent some time in Zimbabwe when it was still under white minority rule (he was there to give medical attention to black residents of the country if I remember correctly).
For those who don’t remember, here is an entry from Wikipedia:
In 2002 Kristof wrote a series of columns indirectly suggesting that Steven Hatfill, a former US Army germ-warfare researcher named a “person of interest” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), might be a “likely culprit” in the 2001 anthrax attacks.[24]
Hatfill was never charged with any crime. In July 2004 Hatfill sued the Times and Kristof for libel, asserting claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.[25] Subsequently, Hatfill voluntarily dismissed Kristof as a defendant in the case when it became clear that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Kristof. The suit continued against the Times and was initially dismissed by the District Court on the basis that the allegations in Kristof’s articles, even if untrue, did not constitute defamation.
In July 2005, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision, and reinstated the suit against The New York Times. In January 2007 Judge Claude M. Hilton of the Eastern District of Virginia tossed out the suit, claiming that Kristof’s anthrax articles were “cautiously worded” and asserted that the scientist could be innocent.[26] Judge Hilton wrote that Kristof “made efforts to avoid implicating his guilt” and that “Mr. Kristof reminded readers to assume plaintiff’s (Hatfill) innocence.”[26]
Kristof praised the dismissal of the suit, commenting that he was “really pleased that the judge recognized the importance of this kind of reporting” and that it was “terrific to have a judgment that protects journalism at a time when the press has had a fair number of rulings against it”.[26] When the FBI exonerated Hatfill, Kristof wrote a column on Aug. 27, 2008, “Media’s Balancing Act,” in which he wrote: “So, first, I owe an apology to Dr. Hatfill. In retrospect, I was right to prod the F.B.I. and to urge tighter scrutiny of Fort Detrick, but the job of the news media is supposed to be to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Instead, I managed to afflict the afflicted.”
The Left will never admit that the 800,000+ jobs that were lost in Jan.’09 were caused by Obama’s inauguration. Business owners across the fruited plain realized that the most ignorant voters on the planet had voted into the Oval Office a Marxist who had no experience at running anything but his mouth.
They proceeded to fire everyone but their family as they hunkered down for the duration of this scourge of a presidency. We can expect NO improvement in their assessment of the economy if the same ignorant electorate returns him to office.
Correct...and even the stock market crash of Fall '08 was due to investors seeing that Obama was about to with the Presidency.
With his promises of carbon credits, universal healthcare, higher taxes and gutting the military investors wanted out.
Even most Repubs don't see this.
First, let's recognize the origins of the banking, housing, and financial market meltdowns that Obozo "fixed". Who was involved in changing the rules for lending? Who, as a Senator, lobbied hard for those rule changes which resulted in lax regulatory requirements for loans? Which two democrats were responsible for oversight of the financial institutions (Dodd) and Freddie Mack/Fannie Mae (Frank)?? The question that is rarely asked with respect to this part of the financial/economic meltdown is who was at the wheel, and who attempted to stop the meltdown, but was completely rebuffed by Dodd/Frank? Democrats took control of Congress (complete control) in Jan 2007, which is the starting point for the current economic crisis.
With respect to the auto industry, and Obozo "saving" it, Bull Spit. The problems encountered within the U.S. auto industry was self-imposed. Ford Motor Company recognized what was taking place with respect to entitlements in retirement contracts, and they acted before the problem got out of hand. Ford established a path to correct the problems. GMC and Chrysler elected to allow the UAW to run roughshod over the two companies, and they did nothing to address an inevitable economic collapse. The auto "bailout" has been a flop. The taxpayers have not been repaid, and the only reason GM has had increased auto sales is the Fed's are buying GM for their fleets of vehicles, making GM appear to have recovered. So, not only have taxpayers NOT recovered the bailout monies, but additional tax dollars are propping up GM, and probably Chrysler also. I cannot understand why there isn't someone pointing out these blatant lies being told by Obozo and the liberals who care about making We The People belong to the Government, and not about fixing anything they are responsible for breaking.
Evey single economic measurement is worse then it was when he took office, debt, income, energy costs, grocery costs, unemployment.
The only way you grade 0 over an F is if you ignore all facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.