I can't help but think that there's a good amount of "I won't give a Democrat so much as a pinky" in this.
Okay, fair enough. I see where you care coming from. My response is, yes and no. I try to keep my criticisms of Obama mostly limited to what he has said and done versus merely his party affiliation. But, admittedly, it is impossible for me to do that 100%. As I have said many times, I do not consider myself a republican, so please don't take this as blind GOP loyalty. It isn't. But as far as party ideology (whether we are talking about "official" party ideology or just the more nebulous set of core beliefs that tend to be shared by those who are members of the party), yes, I am admittedly opposed to a great deal of it. Certainly not all, but a fair portion of it. So in that regard, yes, I do have an anti-Democrat bias. I will not deny that at all. And I also admit that sometimes, that bias may lead me to make more broad judgments than are fair. I don't think it's a good idea to let my biases unfairly act as a lens through which I view all actions of Obama or anyone else, but I am admittedly guilty of that at times, sure. I think that's human nature, and we are all guilty of it to varying degrees. But I do try to be objective, and will absolutely give credit where credit is due.
To pick an obvious and oversimplistic example, I am of the opinion that bringing known terrorists to justice is a priority. So to pick the specific example of Bin Laden, we knew for decades that the guy was dangerous, and that he should be stopped. He was on the nation's priority list going WAY back. Clinton had the opportunity to get him and dropped the ball. I give him an F in that regard. Not because he is a Dem, but because he had Bin Laden on a silver platter and failed to take action. Bush could have been more focused instead of going off on tangents, but didn't have the very specific opportunities Clinton had. Still, his administration missed a lot of clues and was led down rabbit holes that had little to do with the goal. It's hard to know what he knew and didn't know, so it's hard to give a specific grade, but he didn't do well either. Probably somewhere in the D+ to C range (again, if he had the specifics Clinton had, he would clearly get an F). Obama seemed to take a long time, but the dude was seriously underground by the time Obama took office. And he had other fish to fry, so Bin Laden was obviously not priority #1. But when the opportunity presented itself, he acted swiftly and achieved the result. I give him a B+ (would be in the A- or possibly A range if not for what I consider to be mishandling after the fact in terms of what information was released, the handling of the body, etc.). I applaud him for what he accomplished in that regard, democrat or not. He did something good, and he deservedly gets all the credit for it. Again, simplistic example, but what I am trying to say is, I am aware that I am biased, and I consciously try to give credit where credit is due regardless of ideology. That is merely one example.
But in looking at the entire balance sheet, yeah, I find him to be severely lacking and, as I have said before, in the bottom tier all-time.
Topic: Election 2012 (Read 235342 times)
