Obama's Report Card: A "D" and Incomplete

“Obama.”  The name is as polarizing as any that I can recall in my 52 years on God’s green earth.  As America just now crosses the half-way point of this Presidency, what will Barack Obama’s legacy be?  Will history smile, frown, or wax indifference on a leader who’s administration that, in the eyes of public opinion, has swung wildly thus far from “hope” to “nope.” 

For the sake of full disclosure, I did not vote for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012.  Independent candidate Alan Keyes was my choice in ‘08, as I could not possibly cast a vote for John McCain, a co-author with Ted Kennedy on the failed 2007 immigration amnesty bill; or Obama, who’s “change we can all believe in” mantra was easier to see through than any garment adorned by some Hollywood re carpet-walking bimbo.  Critics of my vote for Keyes can accuse me of throwing my vote away, which is fine, since I vote with my conscience; not by party affiliation.   As for 2012, Mitt Romney was my choice; his private industry experience being a key factor in my decision.  I’ve opined on my huge disappointment in the Obama re-election previously.  I’ve had enough time now to accept the will of the people and attempt to create a balance sheet of Obama’s pro’s and con’s to date.

Pro:  Healthcare Reform, or “Obamacare”.  I’ll be first one to admit that I don’t know most of what is written in the bill and frankly, I don’t really care.  None of us know if Obamacare will be successfull in either securing healthcare for all Americans or be fiscally solvent, for that matter.  And yes, such a huge undertaking certainly was crammed down the throats of Congress in too short a period of time and was not thoroughly vetted.  Again, I don’t care.  What is important is that the United States HAD to start somewhere in reforming it’s overall healthcare system, and for far too long both parties in Washington didn’t dare attempt to tinker with it.  President Clinton broached the subject by appointing Hillary as his healthcare “czar’ during his first term, but they dropped the idea like a hot potato following the mid-term elections during which Republicans re-took both the House and Senate.  Give Obama credit for tackling such a sensitive and complex challenge.  Rather than calling for it’s complete expulsion, critics should instead allow the program to be implemented and progress through Obama’s second term and at least another four years beyond.  Monitor the results and tweak as necessary.  Like it or not, this program will take time to determine it’s success, or lack thereof.  My bet is that Obamacare will one day be lauded as the turning point in improving the health of Americans and also reducing the cost, which has been the intention all along.

Con:  The Economy.  Clearly, here the President and his administration have revealed their true, borderline-Socialist colors.  Examples such as the $800 billion American Reinvestment & Recovery Act of 2009, the 2013 “Fiscal Cliff” income tax increases, failed tax-payer dollar investments in “green’ technology and bullet trains, unemployment benefit extensions, and numerous social-spending initiatives, have resulted in an unemployment rate that remains at historically high levels and a stagnant private-sector economy.  And don’t even try to argue and support the Administration’s now five year lament of “we inherited this mess from Bush and we need more time to fix it.”  Please!  Were it not for Congress finally calling Obama’s bluff and allowing the “Sequestration” cuts to be implemented, the President would be writing more rubber checks for additional wasteful “economic stimulus” spending.  I believe this Administration’s handling of the economy will go down as the worst in U.S. history, surpassing even that of Hoover and Carter in terms of incompetence……to say nothing of arrogance!

Pro:  The War on Terror.  True enough, President George W. Bush’s Administration deserves most of the credit for America’s successful assault on Al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations.  Surprisingly, Obama’s pre-Presidential dove nature turned hawk once he entered the White House.  He embraced drone strikes against terrorists on foreign soil and approved of the covert assassination of Osama bin-Laden.  Kudos to the President in this arena should not be misconstrued as support for his overall foreign policy; quite the contrary!  Which leads me to……..

Con:  Foreign Policy.  As bold as Obama has been in rooting out terrorism and openly targeting it’s conspirators, he has been a spineless in dealing with the leaders of nations who are openly hostile to the U.S., such as Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Kim Jong-un of North Korea, and today’s Adolf Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.  Even more of a head-scratcher is Obama’s overt hostility toward Israel in general and in particular, Benjamin Netanyahu.  While Iran continues efforts to develop nuclear weapons and Assad presses on with arming terrorists (while also juggling the killing of his own people in an attempt to remain in power), Obama pressures Netanyahu for retaliatory restraint!  The one reliable ally we have in the Middle East the President treats like a bratty child!  Outside of this ever-burning cauldron of hate on our planet, Obama has held little interest, and the same can be said of him from the rest of the world.  While European nations continue to slide into insolvency due to decades of government spending on entitlements and restrictions on free economic enterprise, Obama looks upon the calamity and frets not, despite the fact his own economic policies mirror those across The Pond!  His hubris is both frustrating and………….worst of all, dangerous.

I wish I could find additional positives over the past four-plus years of the Obama Administration, but I can’t.  As of this writing, the three-headed snake of Benghazi, Associated Press phone records, and Internal Revenue Service scandals all point to the President’s direct knowledge, and hence, endorsement.   “Corrupt” is an adjective that best describes President Obama’s ethics, or lack thereof.  To believe that he will make any substantive, legislative impact over the remainder of his second term is as likely as the Chicago Cubs winning a World Series over the same period.  Actually, the odds for the Cubs are better.  At least they abide by the rules and are willing to “play ball” with their opponents.