I Called It – So Much Worse Than Carter

I love it when I’m right; in January 2008, during the primaries of the presidential election, I gave this report of how I rated each of the candidates:

Great: none of them

Pretty good:
Clinton – because she’s pragmatic when it comes to legislation, and may set aside her personal beliefs when a poll tells her that the American people aren’t behind her (which is good when you don’t agree with her beliefs).
Romney – because he has a vision, and has experience with business turnaround (both in the public and private sector), but lacks a certain amount of panache or verve.
Guiliani – has some good policies, and is a good executive, but may be hampered by his personal issues once he gets in office (see W. J. Clinton).

Obama – he doesn’t have the experience/leadership to lead the legislature, though he does give a good speech and has good PR–probably similar to a B. Clinton presidency, which was average to pretty good, but lacked substantial leadership (Obama has less executive experience than B. Clinton, but makes up for that with his lack of personal issues).
Thompson – lacks a certain motivation right now and would probably be too laid-back to do much good, lacks passion.
McCain – too entrenched, not really gifted in leadership, has been in Washington for 30 years and has not done anything substantial.

Below average/pretty sucky/shouldn’t be in the race they’re so bad:
Edwards – will drag the country to the left, and raise taxes to intolerable levels to do it, has little experience (6 years in the Senate, and not willing to run for re-election), has no executive experience, and should not be in the race.
Huckabee – an insincere, ineffective leader, unable to lead a legislature (it seems like he was led by the legislature of Arkansas when he was governor), like a piece of chaff that is driven and tossed by the wind, unable to choose any position for fear of retribution.
Paul/Kucinich – wacko personality, extreme positions, not able to lead–either the people or the legislature.

It turns out that I was pretty accurate on most of the candidates.  McCain would have been an ineffective president, and Obama has turned out to be an average-to-mediocre president (check out this very good article in The American Spectator).  However, I would like permission to flip my predictions about Obama.  It appears that he’s been pretty effective at getting legislation through the legislature, as evidenced by the passage of Obamacare, but he’s passed wrong/bad legislation, which has caused people to turn against him.  Also, it turns out that, while he had a very disciplined campaign, his administration has been much less than disciplined, constantly making mistakes that shouldn’t have been made (both politically and legislatively).  He has also seriously mismanaged the economy (as far as a president can, I mean).

Question: What do you think of President Obama?  Do you agree with my assessment?

  • http://papuagirlindallas.blogspot.com/ Kacie

    Interesting… I think what you wrote about Clinton here has also described Obama: “may set aside her personal beliefs when a poll tells her that the American people aren’t behind her (which is good when you don’t agree with her beliefs).”

    Despite that, I am satisfied. :)
    I am surprised to see your analysis of Huckabee.

    Would like to find out what you think of Palin now?
    And if you see any hope on the horizon for a potential Republican candidate you’d be satisfied with?

    • Bob

      Palin: She was a pretty good governor; she’d probably make an OK president. I’m not excited about her at this point, primarily because (a) I really don’t know what she’s about, (b) she’s let herself be defined by those who hate her, and (c) I hate her voice.

      Other Repubs: I like Peter Roskam and Paul Ryan, but they’re both Congressmen with no executive experience, and a ways away from being President. I would have to find a Republican who has executive experience, who is personable, and who is principled. Of the governors currently in office, I like:
      Chris Christie: I agree with him on most issues.
      Mitch Daniels: he has a great track record as governor of Indiana, and would make a good candidate.
      Bobby Jindal: very conservative, likeable, has a good track record in governing.
      Rick Perry: long-term governor (I believe he’s running for his 3rd term now), with a good track record.
      Keep in mind that these are people that I agree with POLITICALLY, and have not followed them closely.

      • http://www.nurturedmoms.com/ Heather

        “I hate her voice.” ahahahahahaha. Chris and I were just talking about this. It’s like nails on a chalkboard. However, Hilary Clinton’s is worse, in my opinion!

  • http://fivebares.wordpress.com fivebares

    How is Obama too inexperienced, but Palin “a good governor”? I guess I’m not taking issue with the fact that neither of them were that experienced, but at least Obama had some education and professional experience to back up his job description. Palin couldn’t finish a term and wasn’t an exceptional anything before her governor role, at least not at anything that makes her overly-qualified to run the most visible office in our country…If we’re making the experience argument, anyway…

    • Bob

      My assertion that Obama was too inexperienced was based on the following: he was a senator with no executive experience. His “professional experience” includes a few years as a state senator, and a fraction of a senate term in Congress, all legislative experience and not executive experience, which is what some think is necessary to run a country. Do you disagree?

      I know you have things against Sarah Palin (’cause I always get bad vibes from you about her), but I’m sure she’s not really as bad as you think. In terms of experience to run a country, she was the mayor of a town for 6 years (and elected president of a mayor’s association), and then was the executive of Alaska for 3 years, during which time she managed a $6.6 billion budget, enjoyed high voter approval (89-93%), and reduced government spending, and passed a statewide ethics reform bill. I’m not saying she was a great governor (though there were media outlets who called her the most popular governor of that time); I’m saying she was pretty good (i.e. competent), and had she remained in office, would have been re-elected for a second term.

      What do you have on her?

  • http://fivebares.wordpress.com fivebares

    I’m not doubting she did any of those things. I just don’t see how they’re that impressive (and I only say that respective to this conversation about experience s far as it regards her and Obama).

    I have no way of proving that what he did is harder or easier than what Palin did over the course of her career. But consider the following:

    Her executive experience was over a town where about 1000 votes were cast, total. Add to that her presidential experience over a mayoral council in arguably one of the least complicated states in the country, and I’m not sure how she’s all that impressive. Aside from that, she was a sports anchor.

    On the other hand, we have a current president who advanced through the ranks of law school as the president of law review journal, graduated with honors, then advance through the ranks of private practice which focused in civil rights. He ran various community organizations with ample budgets (obviously not the budget of an entire city or state), and actually showed a commitment in his development to faith-based community efforts instead just spouting a faith-based agenda once he was running for office like Palin did.

    Palin’s experience with a nothing-town in Alaska is no greater than Obama’s exploits in law school and as an attorney. She has nowhere near the record of community involvement that he does, in my opinion. And It’s hard to argue that being a governor is more difficult than a Senator, especially when you take into account the states they represented (and especially when she probably had a much larger staff to handle her duties). Beyond that, it’s impossible to argue that he’s not better educated, and in fields that are more appropriate for his position.

    So I don’t question she has accomplished things. I’m just not impressed (in comparison to others) by them, and don’t think she even comes close to be qualified to be president if we’re making an experience argument. Now, I’m not saying that’s the best way to vote, or if I vote on that even. I’m just saying if that’s the argument being made, she’s not terribly persuasive.

    And I don’t have bad vibes about her as a person. I have bad vibes about how easily Republicans were duped by her. She was a ploy, and because she was THEIR ploy, Republicans have now come out and tried to aggressively defend her and her credentials, all the while decrying how much more experienced or qualified people were less qualified than her. I know that the angry mob making up the tea party now just wants to “take America back” from politics as usual. But Sarah Palin is a perfect example of politics as usual. She’s the reverse to the Obama coin. She’s bizzaro Obama. If Obama is the “Communist” than she’s the “Fascist”. Obama came into office entirely on charisma and popularity, and that’s literally all Palin is to Republicans. No one even knew who she was, but all of a sudden she’s supremely qualified and exactly what we need? After months of decrying Obama’s inexperience as a Senator, the Republicans give us a cheerleading mayor from the most obscure state in the union? I call baloney. :) If Obama is wrong, then Palin is wrong. No one gets a pass because of their party…

    So yeah, it’s not a Palin thing to me. It just happens to be that she’s the person playing the role I hate (for the Republicans right now). It’ll change, year to year, party to party…

    • Bob

      I don’t disagree with you entirely. At this point, I wouldn’t want Palin as president, either. My only point was that she appears to have been a good governor.

      Question for you, though: what makes a good presidential candidate for you? What do you look for? What sends a chill up your leg? :)

      • http://fivebares.wordpress.com fivebares

        Let me think about this more before responding. I have several things I could say that I’d LIKE to see which I just don’t view as realistic in our current day and age. I’ll be honest, I still struggle with how much I should meld my faith with my politics…And I’ll also admit that almost everything about modern politics is somewhat chilling to me. :) More later.

  • http://papuagirlindallas.blogspot.com/ Kacie

    Rick Perry is on my black list as he’s a huge force in the Texas Republican party, which I currently despite because of the many things I was shocked by and disagree with in their official 2010 Party platform:
    And because of some of his ridiculous speeches over the past few years, which I again disagree with.
    And because all of that disagreement is going to be associated with his faith if he gets any higher in the public eye… and I just don’t want all of that associated with my faith!

    Bobby Jindal… that’d be interesting. The other two I haven’t followed at all yet.

    • Bob

      What do you disagree with in their party platform?

    • Bob

      I can more easily argue with you when I know what topic we’re talking about 😉

  • http://papuagirlindallas.blogspot.com Kacie

    haha, there’s a lot I disagree with, particularly in the extremes they use. “swift and unencumbered” use of the death penalty. The defined dislike of multicultural communities within America. The unequivocal support of Israel no matter what the nation of Israel does, which is defended badly with misinterpreted Christian theology that sets Isaac raving. The desire to drop out of the UN. The opinions about gays in the military (they should be kicked out?!).

    And my list goes on. There are some things I agree with. Some particularly wordings literally made me gasp in shock.