The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Zealous Donkey 0]

It probably wont because, you know, the story is complete crap and anyone who is slightly smarter than Glen Beck knows it.

Yes, Soros connection to high ranking democrats, completely unheard of, only a moron would believe such a report. I think I have for the most part been respectful of you and your point of view. Your condecending remarks are increasing and growing old. They also don't add anything. Gobears contributed a valid point in opposition to the post by hblask, you contributed nothing. Maybe your having a bad day, fine, I have had em too, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because this is somewhat out of charactor for you.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Yes, Soros connection to high ranking democrats, completely unheard of, only a moron would believe such a report. I think I have for the most part been respectful of you and your point of view. Your condecending remarks are increasing and growing old. They also don't add anything. Gobears contributed a valid point in opposition to the post by hblask, you contributed nothing. Maybe your having a bad day, fine, I have had em too, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because this is somewhat out of charactor for you.

(Well, I did have my wisdom teeth removed, so I've been pretty cranky all this week. But I apologize for the abrupt, dismissive tone)In general, I think people too quickly jump on the bandwagon when it comes to unlikely, conspiratorial connections. Something as major as Obama funneling US money into Soros' portfolio requires more than a little circumstantial evidence (especially when that evidence was first recognized by Glen Beck). But, then again, I guess it's not really all that unheard of. It's not that much different from something like Iran Contra or Halliburton or (for the sake of being fair and balanced, insert Democratic president example here that I can't think of right now).

[El Guapo 8]

I got an e mail from my Uncle this morning about a bumper sticker he saw while driving to work. Now usually I don't laugh at bumper stickers or the crazed e mails I get from time to time. But laughed out loud when I read this one:Please, don't tell Obama what comes after a trillion.

[hblask 1]

(Well, I did have my wisdom teeth removed, so I've been pretty cranky all this week. But I apologize for the abrupt, dismissive tone)In general, I think people too quickly jump on the bandwagon when it comes to unlikely, conspiratorial connections. Something as major as Obama funneling US money into Soros' portfolio requires more than a little circumstantial evidence (especially when that evidence was first recognized by Glen Beck). But, then again, I guess it's not really all that unheard of. It's not that much different from something like Iran Contra or Halliburton or (for the sake of being fair and balanced, insert Democratic president example here that I can't think of right now).

I've been reflecting on this situation, based on the Snopes article, and it appears to me that this is, in all likelihood, the result of some back room deals, but probably did not involve Obama personally. Since it all started during the Bush years, it is more likely that Soros has lots of connections in high places, and used those connections for a major investment decision. I think it's also likely that Obama helped this stay on course but probably had little effect on the outcome. In the absence of direct evidence saying Obama personally pushed this deal, it can just as easily be explained by the general corporate cronyism that goes on in Washington all the time. So unless some new documents come out, Obama gets a pass on this one.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yea, besides Obama already has a pay out scandal that he can claim 100% his own, no reason to give him ones he was only in with a cursory effort.Just do a google search for Mark Penn and stimulus pay off or click here But not here

[vbnautilus 48]

Yea, besides Obama already has a pay out scandal that he can claim 100% his own, no reason to give him ones he was only in with a cursory effort.Just do a google search for Mark Penn and stimulus pay off or click here But not here

If receiving stimulus money counts as evidence of wrongdoing, then we're going to find a lot of guilty people. In fact, one might say the American populace is guilty of electing Obama in exchange for payoffs.

[El Guapo 8]

In fact, one might say the American populace is guilty of electing Obama in exchange for payoffs.

It took you this long to put 2 and 2 together?

[akoff 0]

If receiving stimulus money counts as evidence of wrongdoing, then we're going to find a lot of guilty people. In fact, one might say the American populace is guilty of electing Obama in exchange for payoffs.

We have found common ground!!!!

[Randy Reed 0]

Here is a recent article from my local rep and minority leader John Boehner and why we keep electing him.My Constituents Care Way More About Political Gamesmanship Than Jobs, Health Care, And The EconomyBy House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) March 2, 2010 | Issue 46•09 It is my responsibility as an elected official to look out for the people back home, the voters who sent me to Washington. So, after 20 years representing Ohio's 8th District, I know what the good citizens of Montgomery, Preble, and Butler counties really want: someone who engages in the kind of calculated political gamesmanship that increases his standing in the Republican party while simultaneously hindering our country's legislative process at every conceivable turn. I assure you, the last thing my voters need is some well intended, do-all-I-possibly-can-to-help-the-little-guy congressman running around Washington, working across the aisle, and fighting tooth and nail for jobs, health care, and financial reform to ensure their tax dollars never end up in the hands of banks capable of holding our entire economy hostage. No, sir. My constituents deserve better. They deserve a leader willing to roll up his sleeves and play the types of twisted, greedy political games that, by their very nature, tear apart the fabric of our democracy for the sake of assuring reelection. They deserve someone on their side who will ask the tough questions, such as how will painting Democrats as radical ideologues play in, say, Arkansas? Can we vote "no" on the health care bill and still make it look like we give two craps about the welfare of ordinary Americans? How can we twist positive news about the GDP into a negative for the Obama administration?Trust me: If you talk to an unemployed, uninsured mother of two in Greenville, she'll tell you that jobs and reliable medical coverage come a distant second to the crafting of meticulous talking points that deftly omit the facts and reduce what should be honest discourse about our country's future to a series of contrived, easy-to-digest sound bites designed to sway crucial independent voters. Take the folks I represent in Dayton. They've seen unemployment skyrocket to 13.2 percent. Now, here is what I did for them: Even though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the stimulus bill will ultimately save or create 2.5 million jobs, I came out and said that the dismal performance of the "stimulus" demonstrates the danger of letting Washington take more control of our economy. My constituents had to be proud. They must have loved the way I blatantly ignored the truth and put quotation marks around "stimulus" so as to delegitimize the whole project. And I bet they noticed that, with just one sentence, I slyly preyed on America's inherent distrust of big government. Pretty good, huh? It's all bullshit of course, but it's a great political play: slimy, deceitful, and downright irresponsible—the kind of no-nonsense, no-actual-help-for-anyone-but-myself strategy that the struggling voters in Butler and Mercer counties rely on. The fact is, if I ever worked across the aisle to help thousands of uninsured Ohioans receive health care, I wouldn't be able to look them in the eye. How could I explain to them that I abandoned the idiotic yet politically fruitful claim that Barack Obama is a socialist bent on destroying the American way of life? How could I admit to them that deficit spending is the only way to get us out of an economic crisis perpetuated by my party's disastrous fiscal ideology? How could I tell them I stopped obsessing over scoring petty political points right before the midterm election?How could I stop being the greedy, myopic scumbag they elected me to be? More than anything, average, workaday Ohioans want me to play politics at the shrewdest, most despicable level, not to waste their time making surgery affordable or offering tax breaks to small businesses. And my constituents are so thankful that I took a nation that was actually hopeful at the beginning of 2009 and turned it into a paranoid, demoralized country unsure of whether it made the right choice in 2008.But in the end, of course, I can't take full credit for the Republican Party's utterly undeserved yet all-too-depressingly-real resurgence. That would be unfair to my Democratic colleagues, who, in their unwillingness to act like grown adults with any kind of backbone and exercise the largest majority any party has seen in decades, have let us get away with all of it. Thank you, you cowardly pieces of shit.http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/my...s_care_way_more

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I am just not a big fan of the Onion.

[Balloon guy 158]

If receiving stimulus money counts as evidence of wrongdoing, then we're going to find a lot of guilty people. In fact, one might say the American populace is guilty of electing Obama in exchange for payoffs.

Except that this little piece of 'stimulus' money was almost exactly the amount Hillary Clinton owed this Mark Penn, and Obama had agreed to 'help her pay off her debts' when the two of them met to agree that Hillary would drop out.So a year later this company gets $6 million and they write it up as 'saving 3 jobs'. In a polling company that is having a banner decade...A bit different than the unions getting work contracts, even for the far left sheep don't you think? Hmmm?

[El Guapo 8]

In recent history, has there been a more polarizing President. I cannot think of anyone who went to strongly after the other party.It's like he won't even consider working with the Republicans on anything anymore. If this persists, this is going to tear our country apart politically, way more so than it is right now.

[CaneBrain 95]

In recent history, has there been a more polarizing President. I cannot think of anyone who went to strongly after the other party.It's like he won't even consider working with the Republicans on anything anymore. If this persists, this is going to tear our country apart politically, way more so than it is right now.

I sense zero difference between now and most of GWB's time as President. It's not "better" but it's not worse either. Bush spent most of his presidency vacillating between ignoring his opponents and openly giving them the middle finger. Bush was "wiping his butt with the Constitution." Now, Obama is "destroying America".Yawn. They don't work together because they have no incentive to do so. It's funny you would preface this with "in recent history".....have you really forgotten how polarizing George W. Bush was? He won re-election because only 49% of the population hated his guts (in 2004....he didn't really alienate everyone until 2007). I see 2012 unfolding similarly.

[vbnautilus 48]

In recent history, has there been a more polarizing President. I cannot think of anyone who went to strongly after the other party.It's like he won't even consider working with the Republicans on anything anymore. If this persists, this is going to tear our country apart politically, way more so than it is right now.

This has nothing to do with the nature of the president and everything to do with the proportion of representatives in congress. The reason the democrats are not "working with the other side" is because they. don't. have. to. I really don't understand this notion that you are supposed to fight in the elections for control of the governing body, and then just throw legislative concessions to the other side if they completely lose. It's a representative republic. Representation ===> influence. If the republicans want to influence the agenda they need to get elected. It's that simple. Losing and then whining that the democrats don't care what they think is ridiculous.

[El Guapo 8]

This has nothing to do with the nature of the president and everything to do with the proportion of representatives in congress. The reason the democrats are not "working with the other side" is because they. don't. have. to. I really don't understand this notion that you are supposed to fight in the elections for control of the governing body, and then just throw legislative concessions to the other side if they completely lose. It's a representative republic. Representation ===> influence. If the republicans want to influence the agenda they need to get elected. It's that simple. Losing and then whining that the democrats don't care what they think is ridiculous.

Well I am not talking about that per se. He had a lot of "talk" in the primaries and campaigning about reaching across the isle, and to me, he has done just the opposite.

[akoff 0]

This has nothing to do with the nature of the president and everything to do with the proportion of representatives in congress. The reason the democrats are not "working with the other side" is because they. don't. have. to. I really don't understand this notion that you are supposed to fight in the elections for control of the governing body, and then just throw legislative concessions to the other side if they completely lose. It's a representative republic. Representation ===> influence. If the republicans want to influence the agenda they need to get elected. It's that simple. Losing and then whining that the democrats don't care what they think is ridiculous.

you are correct on this one...except the thing they promised was change, reaching out, bipartisan...Virtually every piece of legislation they have tried to accomplish has failed either in action (cash for clunkers, stimulus, bailouts, unemployment) or implementation (health care and cap and trade). They being the leadership of the party are so far out there they can't even get their own troops in line with a super majority in both houses...LOL and now it is to late. The smoke has begun to lift, the voters have begun to see what is really going on, they can't get enough votes to pass and if they do it through the reconciliation they are going to get slaughtered in November...granted they are going to take a pretty harsh beat down either way but with the exception of the leadership they understand that it would be suicideIn my opinion history will show this is the most inept period of government in our history....and that is some kind of company. Lucky for us they are totally inept because history would have shown that this congress was the worst in our history if they had been able to actually do anythingHope and change baby...LOL how is that working out for ya

[CaneBrain 95]

Well I am not talking about that per se. He had a lot of "talk" in the primaries and campaigning about reaching across the isle, and to me, he has done just the opposite.

A huge miscalculation. The GOP's strategy was obviously going to be the party of NO (and it's a good political strategy) so Obama should have toned down the "I will reach across the aisle" rhetoric right after he got elected and instead settled on a "the American people have spoken at the ballot box and I will translate that mandate into action". That's what Bush did in 2004 and it provided him cover to keep doing things his way (which involved ignoring the Dems almost completely). But Obama had a grand vision of himself as the great healer of this nation which was silly/unrealistic/idealistic/etc.All this hubbub over reconciliation is pretty silly in the overall. Equating a 50/50 vote with "cramming things down people's throats" is pretty ridiculous (especially since the people making this statement had no problem with Congress using it to pass tax cuts for the wealthy during war-time in 2001). Obama is just doing what he said he would do in regards to health care during the election (well actually he is doing a watered down version of that but you get the idea).

[Balloon guy 158]

A huge miscalculation. The GOP's strategy was obviously going to be the party of NO (and it's a good political strategy) so Obama should have toned down the "I will reach across the aisle" rhetoric right after he got elected and instead settled on a "the American people have spoken at the ballot box and I will translate that mandate into action". That's what Bush did in 2004 and it provided him cover to keep doing things his way (which involved ignoring the Dems almost completely). But Obama had a grand vision of himself as the great healer of this nation which was silly/unrealistic/idealistic/etc.All this hubbub over reconciliation is pretty silly in the overall. Equating a 50/50 vote with "cramming things down people's throats" is pretty ridiculous (especially since the people making this statement had no problem with Congress using it to pass tax cuts for the wealthy during war-time in 2001). Obama is just doing what he said he would do in regards to health care during the election.

I agree largely with this.Except I think you are missing out on how badly Obama is failing as the president when it comes to his near complete abdication of his role as president with regards to allowing Reed and Pelosi do whatever they want. Obama basically said: "I don't care about anything but health care and cap and trade, the rest you guys can do whatever you want with" And they have.It really boils down to the fact that this country elected an inept ideologue who really has no idea why his ideas are completely worthless because he has never actually done anything but suck on the teet of the US taxpayers/government for his entire life and as such is completely lost when it comes to what actually works and what doesn't.Sarah Palin could have done a better job of running the country than Obama has done, without a doubt.

[CaneBrain 95]

I agree largely with this.Except I think you are missing out on how badly Obama is failing as the president when it comes to his near complete abdication of his role as president with regards to allowing Reed and Pelosi do whatever they want. Obama basically said: "I don't care about anything but health care and cap and trade, the rest you guys can do whatever you want with" And they have.It really boils down to the fact that this country elected an inept ideologue who really has no idea why his ideas are completely worthless because he has never actually done anything but suck on the teet of the US taxpayers/government for his entire life and as such is completely lost when it comes to what actually works and what doesn't.Sarah Palin could have done a better job of running the country than Obama has done, without a doubt.

Even polls of REPUBLICANS don't agree with this assessment. Pretending Obama's success in life is a result of the government giving him things (instead of hard work) is absurd.Other than those crucial things (and some others maybe), I largely agree with what you wrote.

[Balloon guy 158]

Even polls of REPUBLICANS don't agree with this assessment.

My point was anyone could do a better job than this waste of a cigarette.

Pretending Obama's success in life is a result of the government giving him things (instead of hard work) is absurd.

I never meant to imply that Obama didn't work for his position, he earned his degree..( through assistance) and applied all by himself for those quasi-government jobs, and even ran for office a few times, but basically he is barely suited to run his own life, we made a big mistake letting him run this country.I hate to say it ( and I don't think the word hate expresses it enough) but I think we would be better off if Hillary had been elected.

Other than those crucial things (and some others maybe), I largely agree with what you wrote.

Of course, I am right, and you are smart, of course you would agree with everything that you understood, and now that I have explained the rest you can go ahead and agree 100% with me.

[CaneBrain 95]

I will just say this: Sarah Palin is an actual example of someone who can barely keep her own house in order. Not Obama.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Virtually every piece of legislation they have tried to accomplish has failed either in action (cash for clunkers, stimulus, bailouts, unemployment)

Cash for Clunkers was a huge success. Many argue that the Stimulus was as well. Bailouts were mostly done by Bush but were probably necessary even if they were very unpopular among populist/libertarians. Unemployment efforts haven't been very successful thus far, but the President can do very little to effect unemployment in general.

In my opinion history will show this is the most inept period of government in our history....and that is some kind of company. Lucky for us they are totally inept because history would have shown that this congress was the worst in our history if they had been able to actually do anything

Well, if the health care bill passes, this congress will become known for passing that bill, and will certainly be known for doing something (specifically, something that was attempted for about 50 years and failed every time before). How history views this congress will depend on how the next month goes.

[hblask 1]

Cash for Clunkers was a huge success.

In what way? I have not heard anyone but Obama claim it was a success. No economic analysis I've seen shows any gain, and much loss. It's just the broken window fallacy writ large.

[Balloon guy 158]

Cash for Clunkers was a huge success.

A $3 billion program that offered me $4,500 to trade in my work van for a new car.The end cost to have the government take my tax dollars and give me incentive to get rid of an older car that still had 10 years of life?$24,000 PER carNice way to claim success, It cost almost 5X more to make this government program work as it would have to just give me $4,500 free incentive to buy a new car.And the earth is still getting colder due to global warming...

[Balloon guy 158]

I will just say this: Sarah Palin is an actual example of someone who can barely keep her own house in order. Not Obama.

At least Sarah can not smoke and so far hasn't run anything into the ground like Obama has the entire American economy ( with help from a few choice democrats to be sure)