Compaired to what?

[Sirkarl101]

What baseline is being used to judge this administrations job performance? In every presidents term or terms, circumstances are always unique and the whole truths are never known to the people. I believe it is unfair to judge Bush with Clinton, Obama with bush etc.

Lets just look at our economic future, If Europe fails it hurts our economy. Did Clinton or GWB deal with what is happening today? Has their been changes like the Arab Spring then.

I am just wondering how you judge the work of each administration. The results can not be measured by a standards since their is none. We all must work together to get the money out of politics, total transparency, and for sanity sake stop printing money, We also need to put the crooked bankers, businessman, and others in jail after a well televised public trial.

 

[editec]

YES!

Comparing administrations as though each was working with the same conditions, and therefore we can compare their outcomes is the stuff of idiots who either are very VERY stupid, or simply dishonest partisan wankers.

 

[kyzr]

Its the ultimate job performance review. Presidential elections don't have Ombudsmen running interference, they don't have union reps whining to management. Its a brutally efficient mechanism to see how many voters like the president's job performance or want him gone.

After Bush/Cheney slithered out of DC with the economy crashing down, Obama was given a long leash. Did the dems know what to do or not? If you believe the dems did a good job, vote them back in. If you think their policies are not helpful, vote them out.

History records certain metrics, such as the "misery index" which is the unemployment rate and the
inflation rate to compare admins, along with the national Debt incurred. The next prez will probably need to battle the misery index, its not going to be easy.
Misery index (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ALL PRESIDENTS ARE COMPARED TO EACH OTHER, AND ALWAYS WILL BE COMPARED.

 

[editec]

Its the ultimate job performance review. Presidential elections don't have Ombudsmen running interference, they don't have union reps whining to management. Its a brutally efficient mechanism to see how many voters like the president's job performance or want him gone.

After Bush/Cheney slithered out of DC with the economy crashing down, Obama was given a long leash. Did the dems know what to do or not? If you believe the dems did a good job, vote them back in. If you think their policies are not helpful, vote them out.

History records certain metrics, such as the "misery index" which is the unemployment rate and the
inflation rate to compare admins, along with the national Debt incurred. The next prez will probably need to battle the misery index, its not going to be easy.
Misery index (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ALL PRESIDENTS ARE COMPARED TO EACH OTHER, AND ALWAYS WILL BE COMPARED.

Only by clueless morons, but I agree with you.

There will always be people who don't understand what they're talking about on boards like these.

 

[percysunshine]

"What baseline is being used to judge this administrations job performance?"

Common sense?

The guy is dumber than Bush.

 

[kyzr]

"What baseline is being used to judge this administrations job performance?" Common sense? The guy is dumber than Bush.

The Daily tracking poll for one
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

Historians have many performance metrics. One of the simplest is "re-election". If the guy does not get re-elected he failed. Its a fairly simple metric.

 

[percysunshine]

"What baseline is being used to judge this administrations job performance?" Common sense? The guy is dumber than Bush.

The Daily tracking poll for one
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

Historians have many performance metrics. One of the simplest is "re-election". If the guy does not get re-elected he failed. Its a fairly simple metric.

Can you buy shares in a daily tracking poll?

 

[bitterlyclingin]

(The journolist, the unofficial campaign to re elect Barack Obama, is up and thumping the hustings this morning in two separate, but nearly identical articles, extolling the president's current tactic to gain re election: Attempting to appear presidential by avoiding dealing with and circumventing Congress, and by extension the will of the American people, by ruling by executive fiat and edict. "Free! Free! Free at last!" Or conversely "All hail Julius Ceasar!" or more simply 'Sieg Heil!")

"Reporting from Honolulu— Heading into the new year, President Obama will insist that Congress renew the payroll tax cut through the end of 2012, but will otherwise limit his dealings with an unpopular Congress, and instead travel the country to deliver his reelection message directly to voters, a White House aide said.

"In terms of the president's relationship with Congress in 2012 — the state of the debate, if you will — the president is no longer tied to Washington, D.C.," spokesman Josh Earnest said in a news briefing in Honolulu.

The assertion is striking given that Obama, as president for nearly three years, is the symbol and personification of the federal government. It also offers a glimpse into an Obama reelection strategy that will target a "do-nothing'' Congress much in the style of Harry S. Truman's reelection campaign in 1948.

With most legislative cliffhangers behind him, Obama does not consider the rest of his policy agenda to be a "must-do" for lawmakers, Earnest said.

Rather, the White House believes Obama would be well-served by continuing to distance himself from a Congress often blamed for Washington's gridlock and infighting."

Obama's resolution? To limit dealings with Congress - latimes.com

"In 2012, Obama to press ahead without Congress
By JULIE PACE, Associated Press – 1 hour ago
HONOLULU (AP) — Leaving behind a year of bruising legislative battles, President Barack Obama enters his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers accomplish little in 2012.

Absent any major policy pushes, much of the year will focus on winning a second term. The president will keep up a robust domestic travel schedule and aggressive campaign fundraising and use executive action to try to boost the economy.

Partisan, down-to-the-wire fights over allowing the nation to take on more debt and sharply reducing government spending defined 2011. In the new year, there are almost no must-do pieces of legislation facing the president and Congress.

The one exception is the looming debate on a full-year extension of a cut in the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. Democrats and Republicans are divided over how to put in place that extension.

The White House believes GOP lawmakers boxed themselves in during the pre-Christmas debate on the tax break and will be hard-pressed to back off their own assertions that it should continue through the end of 2012.

Once that debate is over, the White House says, Obama's political fate will no longer be tied to Washington."

The Associated Press: In 2012, Obama to press ahead without Congress

 

[WatertheTree]

What baseline is being used to judge this administrations job performance? In every presidents term or terms, circumstances are always unique and the whole truths are never known to the people. I believe it is unfair to judge Bush with Clinton, Obama with bush etc.

Lets just look at our economic future, If Europe fails it hurts our economy. Did Clinton or GWB deal with what is happening today? Has their been changes like the Arab Spring then.

I am just wondering how you judge the work of each administration. The results can not be measured by a standards since their is none. We all must work together to get the money out of politics, total transparency, and for sanity sake stop printing money, We also need to put the crooked bankers, businessman, and others in jail after a well televised public trial.

A good baseline is the constitution and the rule of law. This president has done a horrible job on that front, as have all presidents for the last 20 years.

Another good baseline looking at who benefits from a presidents term. Clearly in this case corporate power, especially the financial district and the military complex has benefited. Same as the last 20 years.

Has he served the people? No he has not, and by extension he has not served the nation. He has failed his oath of office and his country. If he had any morals or respect for this nation he would resign in shame. Same as all the presidents for the last 20 years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What baseline is being used to judge this administrations job performance? In every presidents term or terms, circumstances are always unique and the whole truths are never known to the people. I believe it is unfair to judge Bush with Clinton, Obama with bush etc.

Lets just look at our economic future, If Europe fails it hurts our economy. Did Clinton or GWB deal with what is happening today? Has their been changes like the Arab Spring then.

I am just wondering how you judge the work of each administration. The results can not be measured by a standards since their is none. We all must work together to get the money out of politics, total transparency, and for sanity sake stop printing money, We also need to put the crooked bankers, businessman, and others in jail after a well televised public trial.

I believe you are an idiot. Just because events are unique does not mean you cannot compare them.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"What baseline is being used to judge this administrations job performance?" Common sense? The guy is dumber than Bush.

The Daily tracking poll for one
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

Historians have many performance metrics. One of the simplest is "re-election". If the guy does not get re-elected he failed. Its a fairly simple metric.

Not even close to being true. Elections and re-elections are governed by publicity. If actual performance was a factor, Bush would not have been re-elected and Obama would be a shoe-in.

For that matter, the screwballs currently fighting over the Repub nomination would all be used car salesmen because not one of them could actually carry out the duties of president of the US.

Money is what governs elections. That's been fact for a long time and even more so now that the Repubs have passed all their immoral and unethical laws, not to mention the voter fraud laws.

Until those laws are changed and until money is not a factor, we will never again see an honest election.

 

[paulitician]

Vote. That's how you judge performance. Just make sure you vote.

 

[peach174]

"What baseline is being used to judge this administrations job performance?" Common sense? The guy is dumber than Bush.

The Daily tracking poll for one
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

Historians have many performance metrics. One of the simplest is "re-election". If the guy does not get re-elected he failed. Its a fairly simple metric.

Not even close to being true. Elections and re-elections are governed by publicity. If actual performance was a factor, Bush would not have been re-elected and Obama would be a shoe-in.

For that matter, the screwballs currently fighting over the Repub nomination would all be used car salesmen because not one of them could actually carry out the duties of president of the US.

Money is what governs elections. That's been fact for a long time and even more so now that the Repubs have passed all their immoral and unethical laws, not to mention the voter fraud laws.

Until those laws are changed and until money is not a factor, we will never again see an honest election.

I totally agree.
But we also need to elect people who think that the Constitution limits what the Government can do.
We have people in both parties that thinks that Government can do what it please's and then let's the courts decide whether it's Constitutional or not.