The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[FCP Bob 1,321]

that's some fantastic cherry-picking there.I do agree with the idea that lawyers ought to only count for 1/3rd of a person, if anyone is advocating it.

How much for Black lawyers ?

[85suited 0]

How much for Black lawyers ?

I have asked you before, but since you have used it again, and being canadian, do you know the 3/5 compromise?

[FCP Bob 1,321]

I have asked you before, but since you have used it again, and being canadian, do you know the 3/5 compromise?

Yes I know exactly about the 3/5 compromise and I will never let facts get in the way of a joke.

[85suited 0]

Yes I know exactly about the 3/5 compromise and I will never let facts get in the way of a joke.

Ok.. my apologies then

[akoff 0]

Yes I know exactly about the 3/5 compromise and I will never let facts get in the way of a joke.

I laughed

[85suited 0]

-1,000 for standing behind leftist thug Zelaya in Honduras..In June the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court along with the military ousted corrupt Leftist President Manuel Zelaya from power. Zelaya tried to illegally secure himself as president for life like his friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Zelaya was, of course, supported by regional Marxists in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba. The Honduran government appointed Roberto Micheletti president until the planned elections in November. The Obama administration announced early on that they would not recognize the winner of the November election - Which was won by Porfirio Lobo

[CaneBrain 95]

-1,000 for standing behind leftist thug Zelaya in Honduras..In June the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court along with the military ousted corrupt Leftist President Manuel Zelaya from power. Zelaya tried to illegally secure himself as president for life like his friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Zelaya was, of course, supported by regional Marxists in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba. The Honduran government appointed Roberto Micheletti president until the planned elections in November. The Obama administration announced early on that they would not recognize the winner of the November election - Which was won by Porfirio Lobo

The USA does not recognize nor support military coups. Also, as much as a thug as Zelaya might be, he is not the one who directed a kidnapping to further his political agenda.

[85suited 0]

The USA does not recognize nor support military coups. Also, as much as a thug as Zelaya might be, he is not the one who directed a kidnapping to further his political agenda.

Honduras's military acted under judicial orders in deposing President Manuel ZelayaZelaya had repeatedly breached the constitution by pushing ahead with a vote about rewriting the nation's charter that the court ruled illegal.I believe someone named Hugo Chavez did something similiar...

By Octavio SánchezTegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état. That is nonsense.In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law. To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest. It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed. It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution. During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful democratic country has lived through similar periods of trial and error until they were able to forge legal frameworks that adapt to their reality. France crafted more than a dozen constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British – pragmatic as they are – in 900 years have made so many changes that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law. Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency. These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office. Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent. Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed." Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo. The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day. Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions. I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law. Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.

[CaneBrain 95]

Honduras's military acted under judicial orders in deposing President Manuel ZelayaZelaya had repeatedly breached the constitution by pushing ahead with a vote about rewriting the nation's charter that the court ruled illegal.I believe someone named Hugo Chavez did something similiar...

I know the story. He was trying to gauge the public's thoughts about him getting a 2nd term (prohibited by their Constitution) by disguising it as a survey. I am just saying this is Obama between a rock and a hard place. He can either kinda support Chavez lite (Zelaya who is not coming back into power anyway so not a big deal no?) or he can say the USA is ok with military coups. Since Zelaya is never coming back to power anyway, this seems like the best course of action by Obama to me.

[85suited 0]

I know the story. He was trying to gauge the public's thoughts about him getting a 2nd term (prohibited by their Constitution) by disguising it as a survey. I am just saying this is Obama between a rock and a hard place. He can either kinda support Chavez lite (Zelaya who is not coming back into power anyway so not a big deal no?) or he can say the USA is ok with military coups. Since Zelaya is never coming back to power anyway, this seems like the best course of action by Obama to me.

The process of removing Zelaya was laid out in their constitution...

[CaneBrain 95]

The process of removing Zelaya was laid out in their constitution...

If the Honduran constitution says "the way to remove a president is to kidnap him in the middle of the night with the military and fly him out of the country and threaten him with prison if he ever returns", then they have bigger problems.

[vbnautilus 48]

This was an interesting article on how Obama came to a decision about Afghanistan. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34292844/ns/po...ew_york_times//The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something “between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner.”Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents.This account of how the president reached his decision is based on dozens of interviews with participants as well as a review of notes some of them took during Mr. Obama’s 10 meetings with his national security team. Most of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, but their accounts have been matched against those of other participants wherever possible.In my opinion, this kind of process is Obama's real strength. Sounds from the rest of this article like they were really asking the right questions and trying to get to the truth of the matter.

[Balloon guy 158]

This was an interesting article on how Obama came to a decision about Afghanistan. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34292844/ns/po...ew_york_times//The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something “between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner.”Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents.This account of how the president reached his decision is based on dozens of interviews with participants as well as a review of notes some of them took during Mr. Obama’s 10 meetings with his national security team. Most of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, but their accounts have been matched against those of other participants wherever possible.In my opinion, this kind of process is Obama's real strength. Sounds from the rest of this article like they were really asking the right questions and trying to get to the truth of the matter.

So the left is so aware of how wishy washy Obama appears to be in his decisions that they have decided to just interview dozens of people, and review top secret national security team meetings in order to try to make Obama appear thoughtful when he just agrees with what the generals who actually know what is going on make a suggestion?Or are they trying to tell their base: "Sorry we are increasing the size of the war that we promised we would end, but Obama just had to make this decision because things are so messed up that only he can fix them"?Either way, Obama is a poor decision maker, but he made the right one this time. Let's hope he continues to make the right decisions even when they contradict his promises he made during the campaign.

[hblask 1]

This was an interesting article on how Obama came to a decision about Afghanistan. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34292844/ns/po...ew_york_times//The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something "between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner."Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents.This account of how the president reached his decision is based on dozens of interviews with participants as well as a review of notes some of them took during Mr. Obama's 10 meetings with his national security team. Most of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, but their accounts have been matched against those of other participants wherever possible.In my opinion, this kind of process is Obama's real strength. Sounds from the rest of this article like they were really asking the right questions and trying to get to the truth of the matter.

This is a big improvement from Bush's foreign policy decision making, but that's not really high praise. It's obvious that Afghanistan is a lost cause, and now, every death that Americans suffer there is on Obama's hands. There is only one correct foreign policy, and Afghanistan is no exception. Here's what it should be:"You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. If you mess with us, your country will be a glowing ember by morning. Thank you very much."In the case of Al Qeda (or however it is spelled this week), they are not a country, so it's a bit more complicated. But it's clear that trying to impose our will on Afghanistan is not exactly a useful solution. Al Queda is not a country, it's a club. Bush thought invading a country where Al Queda didn't operate while letting bin Laden slip away would be a good idea, but, surprisingly, that didn't work. So as an afterthought, he sent troops to Afghanistan, but not at any meaningful level that could make a difference, and the target is still not Al Qeda. Instead, he made an additional enemy of the Taliban. That was probably necessary, but now the war is against the Taliban while Al Qeda is basically shut down.Just bring the boys back home. If Al Qeda flares up again, attack with full commitment and then leave. Repeat as necessary. The Taliban is not a threat to us, never has been and never could be. They live in fricking caves. Their philosophy is its own punishment.

[vbnautilus 48]

So the left is so aware of how wishy washy Obama appears to be in his decisions that they have decided to just interview dozens of people, and review top secret national security team meetings in order to try to make Obama appear thoughtful when he just agrees with what the generals who actually know what is going on make a suggestion?Or are they trying to tell their base: "Sorry we are increasing the size of the war that we promised we would end, but Obama just had to make this decision because things are so messed up that only he can fix them"?Either way, Obama is a poor decision maker, but he made the right one this time. Let's hope he continues to make the right decisions even when they contradict his promises he made during the campaign.

read the article.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

read the article.

Sure I trust MSNBC and The New York Times to be totally fair and unbiased.

[vbnautilus 48]

Sure I trust MSNBC and The New York Times to be totally fair and unbiased.

I don't trust Balloon Guy to be fair and unbiased either, but I still read his posts.Seriously, though, it was interesting, and has plenty in it that you could fault Obama for too. For instance, it doesn't seem that they are handling their relationship with the military as well as they could.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't trust Balloon Guy to be fair and unbiased either, but I still read his posts.

to be honest, I try to be fair, but unbiased...not even remotely!

[El Guapo 8]

- a large number for wanting to take the 200 Billion that got paid back from TARP to re-stimulate the economy. Especially since in the text of the original bailout funds it said any repayment of those funds was to be directly applied to the deficit.I do however have a different take on the cap for executives under that TARP program. It sure got a lot of that money paid back soon. I don't think that was the intention, but it is a nice side effect.

[El Guapo 8]

I heard this morning that Obama has officially had the largest approval rating drop of any president in the first since we started tracking these sort of things. I did a quick google search and the latest data I saw was from Nov. Does anyone have a link to this?

[CaneBrain 95]

I heard this morning that Obama has officially had the largest approval rating drop of any president in the first since we started tracking these sort of things. I did a quick google search and the latest data I saw was from Nov. Does anyone have a link to this?

Honestly, this probably depends on the poll you use.Also, it may just mean Obama's popularity was wildly inflated after the election by anger at the previous administration.Last I saw, Zogby and CNN had Obama's approval rating still over 50% (which in our society is a win since 45% of the country thinks another 45% sucks balls and vice versa). The Fox News Poll had Obama at -9% approval. I wish to see their numbers.

[hblask 1]

I heard this morning that Obama has officially had the largest approval rating drop of any president in the first since we started tracking these sort of things. I did a quick google search and the latest data I saw was from Nov. Does anyone have a link to this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08...resident-point/President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term. Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama's immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. Bush's support came shortly after he launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

[CaneBrain 95]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08...resident-point/President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term. Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama's immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. Bush's support came shortly after he launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

I dont think you can compare a presidency in the media age to a presidency outside of it. If people had heard Jimmy Carter talk 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, (followed by 19,000 talking heads breaking down every remark) his approval rating would have been at 12% by the first summer.I will be much more interested in Obama's number around Jan 1st, 2011. If he is still under 50% then, he is in trouble. The Democrats were always going to lose seats in 2010 (that's a strong historical trend) it will just be a question of how much.Gold line from Dick Cheney: "I dont want to identify anyone I think might be good to run against Obama in 2012. To be honest, I think that assessment coming from me would hurt them more than help them."Nice to see Cheney take a vacation from delusional-world and join us in reality land for a second.

[brvheart 1,757]

Nice to see Cheney take a vacation from delusional-world and join us in reality land for a second.

In a long list of ignorant things that I've heard you say, this has to be near the top.

[CaneBrain 95]

In a long list of ignorant things that I've heard you say, this has to be near the top.

We have covered this at length in many other threads but I have no problem with you thinking I am ignorant to deride Dick Cheney at every opportunity.Fact: The worst terrorist attack since Pearl Harbor happened while Cheney was VP.Fact: The worst intelligence disaster in United States history happened while Cheney was VP.Fact: This intelligence disaster caused the United States to embark on the most disastrous military engagement in our history. Almost 8 years in Iraq and counting and we still have accomplished little other than to depose Saddam and replace him with lawlessness and guarantee that Iran has the most influence over that area going forward (since we cant stay forever).Fact: Cheney was personally responsible for the enhanced interrogation techniques that turned out to be a public relations disaster for the US and its military. Fact: Cheney left Rumsfeld in charge for far too long and realized far too late that putting someone qualified (Petraeus) in charge instead of his good buddy might be a good idea.Fact: Despite the above massive failures, Cheney still insists he did a great job with our foreign policy and national defense and takes every opportunity he can to put his penguin smirk on TV and bash the sitting president.Therefore, Cheney usually resides on delusion lane a stones' throw from the palace of grandeur.