Is it fair to even think about grading the President of the United States on how he’s governed, considering how tough the job is?

Ordinarily the answer would be no. But, in the case of Barak Obama there has to be an exception. Not because he is black, not because he clearly has no experience, not even because he claims he took over from a president that had eight years to screw up the economy and, after all, he’s only been in office eleven months.

No, not because of any of those things. Why then?

The simple answer is, actually, because of all those things. Let me explain, humor me.

First let’s discuss the issue of race. President Obama’s supporters made it clear, with the specific help of the mainstream news-media press, which refused to print any story that they considered cast Obama in a negative light, and would then permit the printing of any story which in any way met their criteria of exactly what a racial attack might be. What this meant, as any reporter found out by asking questions they deemed as relevant to the campaign, was any questioning of Obama the candidate was clearly a racial comment and therefore was not allowed.

We have many examples of this, beginning with the church in which Obama the candidate worshiped for twenty years and its minister, Reverend Wright. Rev. Wright is clearly a white-hating racist who has nothing good to say about his country. More than one tape has surfaced, many more than one, in which Wright castigates wealthy whites for their ongoing failure to recognize how the impoverished blacks have been preyed upon by them. But he doesn’t stop there, he is bent on including in his rhetoric all white people as being responsible for all the oppression of the black race. Therefore the mainstream press failed to make any comments against Obama with regard to why his wife and he attended services there for so long. Also counting among claimed examples of racism is Obama’s actions when hearing a black, professor friend of his was arrested and charged with assaulting an officer who was investigating the home and caught the man breaking into his own house. Obama defended by accusing the white detective of racial profiling, when in fact, after the facts were shown the officer was simply doing his job. The President responded by having a tea party on the White House lawn to show that men of good faith can get along. Thereby making what he considered as a public relations event with himself as the benevolent teacher.

Many news-people, particularly from Fox News or am radio have been accused of racism by the Obama administration, or the so-called mainstream news

I don’t want to fill this article with similar racial incidents, because there are other points needing to be cleared up as to why Obama should be graded on the first year of his presidency. Playing the race card for political gain or to inflict political pain is, today unfortunately a common occurrence.

Now then, discussing experience would seem to be clearly an issue for which the presidential grading could be played down. Except, those pesky Obama supporters, with Obama’s backing, made the absolutely absurd claim that, it was not John McCain they were worried about, no it was Sarah Palin who was not prepared to be one heart beat away from the presidency. I say absurd because of Obama’s running mate, none other than the ‘foot in mouth’ expert, Joseph Biden.

Now let’s get this one clear. The Democrats put up a candidate, Barack Obama, whose experience was some terrific time spent as a community-organizer (he helped get out the vote for the Democratic Party), served as a state senator for a term or two. And a United States Senator for an entire year and a half, with hardly any record to speak of except to oppose anything George Bush might do. They ran him against, not the Presidential candidate, John McCain, but the vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin who had several years as a mayor, county supervisor, and was even an oil and gas regulator for the state, and finally, being elected as the Governor of Alaska in 2006, with a clear record as someone who would reach across the aisle for non-partisan involvement. So it’s once again Obama’s insistence of his great experience as someone who would reach across the aisle, that gives us the right to grade his efforts. It was his claims that proved empty that allow us to grade him.

The last issue has to be the most absurd, precisely because of his first year in office. Bush dealt with a direct attack against the US with decisive and immediate action. He took the opportunity, right or wrong, to use Iraq as the starting point for his WAR ON TERRORISM. The war was costly, no doubt, but George W. Bush committed early and with the support of: the American people, and their elected leaders. No matter that, within only a month or two after the Iraqi war began, the Progressive Liberal machine began their opposition to the war by proclaiming it another Vietnam. The now, ever so dependable left wing response– make sure you vote for the war and then when it is started you change and reverse your opinion. Every war is Vietnam for the Libs. They have not met a war they can’t lose.

Bush was responsible for two other things the libs held against him during his eight years as president. The first was ‘no child left behind’ the educational bill he and liberal leader Senator Ted Kennedy were responsible for, and the Medicare prescription plan at the end of his first term. With the war added in, Bush’s eight years were the most costly by far from any other administration. Ordinarily this wouldn’t scare a liberal in the congress, but it made a great talking point for candidate Obama. Bush’s 1.4 Trillion deficit was sheer insanity, even a good number of Republicans were angry about that. But let’s make something very clear. Bush took eight years to rack up that record. In less than a year only, Obama has engineered the spending of three times that amount, and with a disastrous National Health reform bill which is an unreadable mess of regulations, taxes and, incredibly poor timing, will add at least another trillion or two to the mix. And let’s not forget to mention the absolute refusal of Obama to allow the American public to see the transparency in any of his decisions; remember, another of his stated claims for his new administration, complete transparency. Finally in the last few months, an obvious political attempt to dodge a decision about an Afghanistan troop build-up which put American men and women at risk for almost three months.

So, the answer is yes, his actual deeds as opposed to his stated goals, require the same accountability which he demanded from his predecessor.

Let’s assume then, that we grade him on appearances, positions advocated and actually displayed, the economy, and the War on Terror:

Appearances- since he has taken every occasion to put his face in front of the American people on a scale that minimizes even the flashy Bill Clinton as a rival, we are forced to give him an A, he does definitely want the people of the world to see him on a regular basis, whether they want to or not.

As to positions advocated as opposed to positions actually taken, Obama is by far even more left and equally as ignorant of the American people as Jimmy Carter. We give him a solid F.

The economy is a hands down F. There is no economics class in the world that advocates spending three times what your predecessor spent to quell a recession. Although one might, if one were a Harvard debating graduate attempt to dodge the issue by blaming your predecessor for blinding your better judgement.

As for the War On Terror, for dragging his feet and finally making a decision he knew he had to make two and a half months later, we give him a reluctant D.

Overall,

A=5 pts 5.

B=4 pts.

C=3 pts.

D=2 pts 2

F=1pts. 2/2

9 pts. = D+ or weak C- Of course that requires looking at Category one as a positive. Otherwise a weak D..

D. Kenneth Ross