Considering what he has accomplished, it,s hard to believe President Obama has only been in office for 100 days.
Just look at the record. He has steadied the economy, cleaned up America;s image in the world, and given the American [people renewed hope.
In three short months Ob ama has unveiled an $878 billion stimulus package, ordered the shut down of the Guantanimo prison within a year, committed 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and drawn up a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
The number of Americans who think the country is on the right track has doubled.
bama;sObama’s approval rating is at 63 per cent, the highest for any president after 100 days in three decades
In the light of this sterling record would be inclined to give Obama and A plus. What makes me hesitate is his fumbling of the torture issue. At first Obama was against an inquiry into torutre methods under Bush. Then he waffled on a truth commission.. Then he said the whole mess would be turned over to the Attorney=General..
This uncharacteristic fumbling brings Obama’s grade down to a striaght A.
hat grade would you give Ob ama for his first 100 daYS
This uncharacteristic dropping the ball brings my grade for O
You mean the sense of hope that he has given to Liberals. Don’t conflate them with Americans; it’s insulting in its inaccuracy.
Insulting, you say. Obama has a 63 per cent approval rating.. That comes from the nation as a whole, not just Liberals. This is a good base to hold the Congress nextg year and win a second term in 2012. Incidentally, whom will the Republicans run – Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh?
Jonolan, are you “The Joker”.
I give Obama a C minus because he is continuing virtually all of George Bush’s policies:
1) Spending. The stimulus concept started under Bush, continuing under Obama.
2) Borrowing. Heavily engaged in by Bush, continuing under Obama.
3) Deficits. Heavy under Bush, even heavier under Obama.
4) Bailouts of banks, insurance giant AIG, and the feckle American auto industry. Started under Bush, continuing under Obama.
5) Torture. Condoned under Bush, condoned under Obama. At his press conference the other day, he sounded exactly like Bush on the issue, refusing to rule out anything that will defend the American people when asked a direct question about the issue by a reporter.
6) Conflict of interest. Obama has already made executive order exceptions to the rule that no one may serve in his administration who worked as a lobbyist in the past two years.
7) Iraqis and Americans dying in Iraq. Started under Bush, continues under Obama.
9) Horrible gaffs with aircraft. Bush landed a jet fighter on an aircraft carrier announcing “mission accomplished”. The Obama administration scared 10s of thousands of New Yorkers that a terrorist attack was under way with a fly-over of Manhatten by Air Force One.
It was amusing to see Obama answer the “humbling” question asked by a reporter at the news conference yesterday when he responded that he didn’t realize that the position of president wasn’t as powerful as he thought it was. Oh, and he looked about 20 years older as he said it…
…oh, and that smiley face at the beginning of the point on gay marriage?
Don’t know how it got there but it was supposed to be the number 8. Perhaps pressing the 8 co-incides with the key for the smily face and I inadvertedly pressed another key at the same time.
It was not meant to be a comment on gay marriage…
“…oh, and that smiley face at the beginning of the point on gay marriage?”
…is the html tag for the “cool” smiley, the way you did it by putting the “8″ in front of the closed paren, “)”. You just figured out how to do tags!
So Obama is mediocre because, according to your perspective, he is just like Bush. I guess Bush was pretty awful then, wasn’t he?
Eight years of Bush-Cheney and sycophants did a tremendous amount of damage to the USA. It takes more than the symbolic 100 days to turn that around. I am heartened at the definitive steps Obama has taken already. There are definite signs that he is on the right track and most Americans grant him that. This alone is total reversal of American morale during the Bush years.
I am a stingy grader (as former students may attest) and I give him an A for “hearts and minds” issues, for restoring calm and intelligence to the Oval Office, for making difficult decisions, for support for the working people and students, for improving the international stature of the USA. As far as the economy goes, he gets an Incomplete. He took a gamble, let’s face it, in spending so much money. The economy may be bottoming out and may stay that way for some time. I do have faith that someone who can bring out the “better angels” in the American people will have success in the long run.
As far as the opposition to gay marriage, I suspect Obama is letting the citizenry make that decision. It is the more prudent way to go and the one that will bring about the legalization of gay marriage within a decade. Younger people are strongly in favour of legalization.
So, Ton y, you think Obama is a con tinuation of Bush. You are the only American, among 300 million, that I know of who thinks so.
e
Just listten to Fox News. They are all grunting like stuckpigs over there because they claim Obama is undermining everything that Bush did.
Barbara writes:
So Obama is mediocre because, according to your perspective, he is just like Bush. I guess Bush was pretty awful then, wasn’t he?
Yes, he was.
But I will concede, Barbara, as you point out that this rock star type personality is restoring a positive image to America throughout the world and, I suppose, that that counts for something, although P.T. Barnum comes to mind rather than, say, Winston Churchill.
Neil writes:
So, Tony, you think Obama is a continuation of Bush. You are the only American, among 300 million, that I know of who thinks so.
Just listen to Fox News. They are all grunting like stuckpigs over there because they claim Obama is undermining everything that Bush did.
Why would I care if I’m the only one? I think for myself and offer evidence to back it up.
As for Fox News: I think their major complaint is regarding homeland security. But who cares what they say now…they were unthinking automatrons for 8 years backing Bush when he was anything but a conservative.
Bush was a borrow and spend Republican. His successor, Obama, is a borrow and spend Democrat.
A plague on both their houses.
So far Obama has been good for the US image. He has reopened communication channels that had been shut for way too long and that is something worth noticing. It could end up all talk and no action…but let’s give the guy an honest chance. I agree with barbara’s grade.
Bush spent 3000 days to build a house of concrete which was to be his mark left to the world to be admired. Concrete without reinforcing rods. 100 days has been spent to carefully dismantle this structure. To the informed, Obama is tearing down Bush’s folly. To the uninformed, it appears that Obama is following in Bush’s footstops, just because Obama is hanging around the same structure. How gauche! How droll!
Jim:
Nice, flowery words but they are not anchored in reality.
Increasing spending along the very same lines that Bush did is not carefully dismantling anything.
Obama is investing, Bush was giving away. Obama sets conditions for the bail outs, Bush did not. Oabama has set up a review committee, Bush had one man giving away without control nor ovesight. O=W???
Tony, “Increasing spending along the same lines that Bush did is not carefully dismantling anything” You are only seeing as far as the end of your nose. It takes more than a 100 days to dismantle laissez faire capitalism and bring in democratic socialism.
The future I see is the regulation of big business and the freedom of millions of small entrepeneurs to flourish and raise the economy for everyone.
Peter writes:
The future I see is the regulation of big business and the freedom of millions of small entrepeneurs to flourish and raise the economy for everyone.
…and…
It takes more than a 100 days to dismantle laissez faire capitalism and bring in democratic socialism.
Nothing wrong with the freedom of millions of small entrepreneurs to flourish. In fact, it’s a very good thing. But that’s the opposite of the “democratic socialism” you say you want and is precisely the “laissez faire capitalism” you disdain.
The more government controls the economy, the less wealth will be created, proportionately, for the people on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. The more unfettered capitalism is, the more, disproportionately, the poor get.
Socialism breeds elitism. Controlling the economy always benefits the cronies of those in power with the poor, particularly, losing more than everyone else. Big business almost always succeeds in doing so. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water in order to try to curb those instances in which it doesn’t.
Peter, you sound like Hugo Chavez whom you no doubt admire. When Chavez gave Obama that book at that conference last week about the alleged horrors of American imperialism in Latin America, Obama should have reponded at their next meeting by giving him a copy of “The Black Book of Communism.”
“The future I see is the regulation of big business and the freedom of millions of small entrepeneurs to flourish and raise the economy for everyone.”
Scary and oxymoronic at the same time.
I can just see the government “regulating” those millions of businesses.
Peter, seriously.
Exposrip, ” I can just see the government regulating millions of businesses” That not what I said. I said regulate big business and allow small business to flourish without regulation.
Tony democratic socialism has different interpretations. Canada is a more socialist country than the U.S., so far. I see socialism as a mixed economy. Simply stated ambitious people should be allowed to prosper. I love the entrepeneural spirit of the U.S., we don’t have it here in Canada to the same extent. My socialism is all for small business and providing Government intervention, without stating the obvious Military, Police and Fire Fighting. In addition Transportation, Health Care, especially of the aged. How can anyone be against that.
Peter:
Your definition of “socialism” above in post #18 is great. But why so eager to regulate larger businesses as you were in an earlier post? Regulation and government interference stifles creativity and infringes growth…we know that now.
Offering goods and services on a larger level than just “small businesses” has many advantages for society and the consumer, such as economies of scale. Why not extend your good wishes for an entrepreneurial spirit to the Fortune 500 as well?