I don't understand why anybody thought the 47% remarks were, well, relevant to the 2012 election. I had been following the poll numbers fairly closely at the time and detected absolutely no shift in the polls after that remark. By the time it was made, the independents and Republicans who ended up voting for him had already fully agreed with him about the parasitic nature of the 47% (indeed, it's been a conservative talking point for years at this point) and the Democrats and independents who disliked that remark had already made up their minds that Mr. Venture Capitalist Romney simply wasn't their man.
I wish it was that easy.
I'm afraid he feels he has an agenda to keep and miles to go before he sleeps.
As long as the Republicans maintain control of the house which looks pretty safe at this point in time. I don't foresee any piece of a major legislation agenda being passed. I think all this president can do from now on out is just keep what ever portion of his agenda he had passed in place. Nothing new.
He can still appoint judges, maybe even a supreme or two and that as Biden would say is a big f**** deal.
Long answer - hell no.Short answer - no.
Or, you know, the policies he advocates.
That the black president ought to be judged by what he says and does, rather than his skin color, just like the 42 white presidents who came before him.
He certainly got dealt a difficult hand.
And in some cases he acted correctly.
But I think overall one cannot say he's been a very effective president.
I'm sure this will end in a proper and dignified manner.
Yeah, when Truman left office he was at 38% approval rating and ranked down near the bottom, now he seems to make everyone's top ten. Near great. No one really knows, but historians have said in order to rank a president accurately they have to be out of office for 20 years. This gives them a chance to see how their policies effected the country and also gives time for the heavy partisanship to die down.
I still run across those highly partisan's who place FDR way down on the bottom below such greats as Harding, Coolidge and Grant. Each of rates presidents differently and have different things that are important to them as to what they do or don't do. I do think Obama will probably end up being ranked around the top of the bottom third and Bush the second a little lower.
.I do know IKE is my number one of the 11 I remember and I have always ranked JFK as number two. But I think with JFK it was more for what might have been than what really was. But for me, that is just the way it is
.Below average, somewhere between bad and mediocre
Just for comparison, where would you rank G.W. Bush in comparison to all Presidents of the USA?
I put Bush close to the bottom, somewhere between bad and worse.
Say what you want about Bush, he actually joined hands with the other side and sought to get majorities.The way this President is dividing the country sickens me.
I agree that Eisenhower was an excellent president.
I put him pretty close to the top of the list.
He was also a pretty good general.
We could use a lot of politicians who think and act like him like him right now.
I'm talking about people who put what's good for the USA ahead of what's good for the party that they belong to.
You might want to try to get some help for that because Obama is going to be in the White House until another Democrat takes his place in 2017.
Three years is a long time to stay sick.
Just for comparison, where would you rank G.W. Bush in comparison to all Presidents of the USA?
I put Bush close to the bottom, somewhere between bad and worse.
Just for comparison, where would you rank G.W. Bush in comparison to all Presidents of the USA?
I put Bush close to the bottom, somewhere between bad and worse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?