For those that chose “The first year has set the stage for greater things.”

Is this your optimistic outlook for Obama, Democrats, Republicans, the American people… what exactly? I can see it going either way. The ambiguity of that choice allows for lots of wiggle room.

I was surprised to see that people feel it is that different. In some intangible ways (foreign opinion of us, mostly Europe) some things may be better, but for the most part, everything seems the same. We have a president in office with a legislature that can’t get anything done. Pretty much the same as with Bush. The only difference is that the Dems in congress can’t get it together enough to do anything with nearly a super-majority. Even that, though, is pretty standard (see Bush’s first two years, Clinton’s first two years, etc).

So, in a kind of echo to JB’s question, what has he done to set the stage for greater things/make things worse. I see everything right now as the logical progression from where we were a year ago/two years ago/three years ago. It doesn’t really seem like it mattered who was in office.

Now, for the “Bush was better” vote. What rubric did you use? I never jumped on the “Bush is an idiot” bandwagon, but I find it hard to believe that Obama is doing noticeably worse than W. Foreign relations, economics, civil liberties… they all took a beating during Bush’s tenure. So, what are the specific ways that he was better. Or maybe it was a joke. Or maybe you just don’t like Democrats so no matter what a Republican would be better.

I usually boycott late night TV shows, but a couple nights ago I caught an interview on Letterman while finishing a workout. I don’t remember the name of the guest, but she was some political analyst. David asked what she thought of Obama’s first year and she said something along the lines of:

“Well, it’s kind of interesting. The opposition has been making so much noise – with the Tea Parties and Sarah Palin – that people seem to be missing that Obama has quietly put together a solid year – you know, doing all the things he said he would do. When you think about it, he’s compiled the most impressive legislation package that we’ve seen in any year this century.”

She went on to say the bailouts saved our banks, the stimulus saved our economy, and that he’s getting healthcare done (something the past X number of Presidents have all tried to do but failed).

Even worse than the staggering amount of assumption she seemed to be making (i.e., Who’s to say if the banks should have been saved, if the stimulus will have helped or hurt the economy in the long run, if the healthcare bill will pass, or if it’s even a good idea?), one thing struck me as completely off base:

Since when should a President be judged on a “legislation package?” He’s the head of the Executive Branch of government.

He has raised the IQ of the USA about 100 points.