The book is written from the left, criticizing Obama for being the victim of conservative advisors. Naturally, conservatives use the book to attack Obama. They count on us not reading the book and knowing its substance.
The book shows Obama as an incompetent leader and a ditherer. Left or right flank, that's a tough claim to walk back, as Jay Carney found out today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics) W ranks 5th best since 1948 Carter ranks 11th (worst) Obama would be 7th, slightly ahead of GHW Bush (W was a better president than his father, no doubt) Using BMI W 2nd term was 6th best W 1st term was 8th best Again Carter was last.
Your job depends on you following orders from your CIC, and I wouldn't expect you to post anything but positive things about him. Your opinion is obviously biased, and I suggest you refrain from any threads involving Obama. Your bias on this is obvious, and you've posted before how you won't/can't criticize the CIC.
Here comes the pep rally from the living in the past gang. Meanwhile, Failbama is worse than both of the Bush presidents in almost every measure that has been polled.
yeah, if there's one thing we all know from BFW, it's that he's only said positive things about Obama....and it is painfully obvious that he masks his bias so cleverly that he says that George H Bush was a better president then his son George W Bush. absolutely brilliant brian.
You should stop mocking an 8 year-old with a life-threatening disease. You won't, though. It's the liberal way.
why are you letting your kid mix alcohol with medication? that seems like poor parenting. ooh, I'm sorry. I thought since you were saying nonsense shit, I would too.
Make the case that GHW was better than Bush. As near as I can tell, GHW failed to complete the mission in Iraq, left troops in Saudi Arabia, presided over about 4 years of recession, presided over the S&L crash, and failed to keep his #1 campaign promise (No New Taxes). He left office with a job approval rating of 29, and was the only republican since FDR to not win reelection. He entered office with debt as a % of GDP of 53.1% and left with 66.1%. GDP was growing by 4% annually when he took office and was 2.8% for 2 of his years, 1.7% and -0.8% the other two.
I'm glad you had me read that article. I learned some things. All the stupid Okun misery index is, is the inflation percentage plus the unemployment percentage (which is easily altered by benefits currently offered--when Democratic presidents increase benefits, more people apply for unemployment and increase the stupid index). The Barro misery index adds GDP and the bank rate. Both indices are meaningless, just rules of thumb, just guidelines. Strange things going on in that article. Numbers have been jimmied to make Carter look bad. Let's start with the Barro misery index. From the article: Hmm. Ford is the only president not listed separately. That's because he'd be at the bottom. If the 8 Nixon/Ford years are 8.0, including 6 Nixon years of 1.6, then Ford's 2 years are 27.2 =(8*8.0 minus 6*1.6)/2. Wikipedia covered it up by combining Ford and Nixon. Wrong. Ford was. Next, the big chart in the article about the Okun misery index. Okun was the brilliant young Economic advisor to Lyndon Johnson who mysteriously died of a heart attack at age 51 in the 1980 purges which got Reagan elected (e.g. Ted Kennedy advisor Allard Lowenstein). For each president, the beginning misery index number should equal the ending misery index number for the preceding president. It never does. The beginning number has been jimmied down for each Republican (to improve his change number) and up for each Democrat (to make his change number worse). There are 2 exceptions, the Bush boys. The Wikipedia article is rigged with 2 statistical lies that I, as a rookie to the misery index, immediately noticed. I wonder how many more lies are in the article.
