BTW, He gave himself a B+.....:huh:

You guys are really lenient on how you grade foreign policy I guess. Let's see, bring the troops home, like he said he would, and he hasn't done it. Continue keeping bases open in 130 countries around the world and costing America $1 trillion dollars/yr. Continue to attack people who only hate us because we occupy their holy-land instead of removing ourselves from their holy-land. (We can't afford this war, yet no one ever talks about that. This everlasting war has bankrupt America and will continue to do so. And we get little to no benefit from it.)

Obama has been horrible in foreign policy (I would say his "bow", the one in Japan I think, is also in foreign policy as well as his Copenhagen trip). And he has been equally as bad so far in domestic policies (cash for clunkers, stimulus, focusing on socialist health-care). Legalize marijuana and he'll actually have done something useful (though I fear cap and trade is the next agenda for him).

bigmanbt wrote: You guys are really lenient on how you grade foreign policy I guess. Let's see, bring the troops home, like he said he would, and he hasn't done it. Continue keeping bases open in 130 countries around the world and costing America $1 trillion dollars/yr. Continue to attack people who only hate us because we occupy their holy-land instead of removing ourselves from their holy-land. (We can't afford this war, yet no one ever talks about that. This everlasting war has bankrupt America and will continue to do so. And we get little to no benefit from it.)

Obama has been horrible in foreign policy (I would say his "bow", the one in Japan I think, is also in foreign policy as well as his Copenhagen trip). And he has been equally as bad so far in domestic policies (cash for clunkers, stimulus, focusing on socialist health-care). Legalize marijuana and he'll actually have done something useful (though I fear cap and trade is the next agenda for him).

1. He stated in his campaign he would bring the troops from Iraq home in 18 months, not immediately. He stated he would increase troops in Afghanistan, not reduce them.

2. The bases is a huge restructuring issue. You cannot just say, leave this base now. It takes logistics, military strategy, contingency plans, reassuring allies that we are not leaving, and figuring out what happens if x,y, and z happen. Look at the debate over the Japanese base. The Marines want to leave, but know that it is much more complex than just leaving.

3. Yes, they attack us because we are in their holy land. Yet, we cannot leave a vacuum where the radicals can take over and establish an area that can launch attacks against the U.S. and its allies. Even if the U.S. pulls out of the region, al Qaeda will still be determined to strike other states in the region that do not adhere to their radical ideology. Given the interconnected world, that would be very bad for the U.S. economically and security wise. Yes, the costs are high. But, we spent more during the Cold War and survived to have the 1990s.

4. The bow doesn't mean jack shit. It is meaningless in the greater scheme of things. You really think leaders who debate policy put the bows at the top of the list saying, "Ohhh, the U.S. is so weak now, look they are bowing!" Give me a break.

5. Domestic wise, I'll largely agree with you, but that is more the crazy D's in Congress as well.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
1. He stated in his campaign he would bring the troops from Iraq home in 18 months, not immediately. He stated he would increase troops in Afghanistan, not reduce them. Yet we are still establishing permanent bases in Iraq as we speak.

2. The bases is a huge restructuring issue. You cannot just say, leave this base now. It takes logistics, military strategy, contingency plans, reassuring allies that we are not leaving, and figuring out what happens if x,y, and z happen. Look at the debate over the Japanese base. The Marines want to leave, but know that it is much more complex than just leaving. It really is that simple though. I understand what you are saying and the red tape and paperwork to be done to remove the bases is a long process, but we have no need for permanent bases in 130 countries around the world. It costs the US $1 trillion/yr, when quite honestly, if these countries really wanted us to be there, they should have to pay US for our protection. We shouldn't have to pay to protect other countries.

3. Yes, they attack us because we are in their holy land. Yet, we cannot leave a vacuum where the radicals can take over and establish an area that can launch attacks against the U.S. and its allies. Even if the U.S. pulls out of the region, al Qaeda will still be determined to strike other states in the region that do not adhere to their radical ideology. Given the interconnected world, that would be very bad for the U.S. economically and security wise. Yes, the costs are high. But, we spent more during the Cold War and survived to have the 1990s. Your first line says it all. Isn't that enough of a reason to remove ourselves from there? It would certainly reduce the hostilities for us.

4. The bow doesn't mean jack shit. It is meaningless in the greater scheme of things. You really think leaders who debate policy put the bows at the top of the list saying, "Ohhh, the U.S. is so weak now, look they are bowing!" Give me a break. I don't care what other country leaders think about us, I care what we think about ourselves. There use to be a time when America was viewed as the dreamland. People left their lives in droves to come live here, with no security of a living once they arrived. We could act better than the rest of the world cause damnit we were better than the rest of the world. We've lost that now, and that bow was just one of the many signals that we have.

5. Domestic wise, I'll largely agree with you, but that is more the crazy D's in Congress as well. Agree with this. I would do so much differently on domestic policy, but I have little to no expectations for Obama to do them

Domestic Policy: C

Foreign Policy B

Congress/Senate: F/Kicked out of school for incompetency

How do our military bases cost us $1trillion a year when the entire military budget, including the wars, is about $670B? Military bases costing roughly 30% of the federal budget? I'm going to say someone has their facts wrong.

Although I do agree that we have too many bases and reducing the number should be part of a major meat cleaver to the military budget.

jhay78 wrote: Domestic policy is terrible: D- ; Congress gets some of the blame for that too

Foreign policy: C ; he's actually being more reasonable here than his campaign promises led me to believe. I think he found out it's easier to make speeches about ending wars and closing Gitmo than it is to actually make an attempt at keeping America safe.
The whole delay with extra troops to Afghanistan brought his grade down here.

I would agree, except I would give a higher domestic policy grade (D+ to C) as there is only so much he can do about our moronic Congress. This is why I put the whole thing at a C. There's a lot to be desired, but yet it could be a hell of a lot worse. Completely average sums it up well.

As someone else mentioned, I would put Congress in the low D/F range, giving the whole operation in Washington a low C/D range. However, Congress is not part of his Administration (we elect them, he appoints his administration), they are their own beast.

Remember, neither selection we had in 2008 was good. SOME of the situations would have been bad regardless of if McCain or Obama were President. I feel that McCain's grade would be exactly the same at this point (completely average), with missteps just in different places. It's like when people whine about Strickland, which indirectly insinuates Blackwell would have somehow done it better. We all know better than that.