Why does Obama deserve another 4 years?

Besides the Republicans are evil. Why does the President deserve another 4 years?

In no particular order:

+ He got Bin Laden
+ Greater equality for homosexuals
+ Helped avoid financial collapse
+ Got us out of Iraq
+ Stood up to Pakistan

~ He passed healthcare reform (jury out on this one in my mind)
~ Auto bailouts

- Unemployment is high
- Ignored his debt commission
- He promised to reduce the deficit by 50% and has not even made a dent in it yet.
- High level of tax uncertainty
- Still in Afghanistan

Feel free to add or subtract as you see fit.

I think there should be a high bar for a second term. Since Reagan, one could argue Presidents with a second term went off a cliff. Possible exception is Clinton unless you excuse the constant personal scandals.

Because the alternative is... not pretty. Romney is an empty suit, Paul would pretty much only be able to cut the things that would do damage to the country, and not be able to do any cuts that would do any good.

That alone is enough to get my vote, though not terribly enthusiastically.

The presidential race will be between Obama and Romney, not Obama vs. an idealized version of Obama.

But more to your point, the reason he deserves a second term is that his opponent would be worse on every issue touched on by your bullet points save, maybe, tax uncertainty.

Because the Republicans have gone bat crazy and are still in their 40 years of wilderness period? If Gov. Huntsman would have won the nomination, I think a lot more people who voted for President Obama in 2008 may not be as willing to hold their nose for him in 2012.

While I know where you're going with this and I sympathize, however it's no small thing to me to have someone in the White House who is pro gay marriage. The leader of this country can be a force to create social change, and his point of view is much closer to mine than Robotney's.

How about so that we get a President for 4 years, instead of 2.5-3? The amount of time spent fund raising and campaigning for the next term is insane - I think it is the best justification for term limits. Longer terms, limit of one!

Because I like him, and hate the other guy.

Greg wrote:

- Unemployment is high

Based on what Republicans wanted to do with the auto bailout and would like to do with Federal spending, I'd say that it's a positive that unemployment is as low as it is.

I would seriously entertain a Romney-Huntsman ticket.

I am much more concerned with the Republican led House and how cutting into our investments spells long term savings to the US. Cuts to Federal Financial Aid, Federal Work Study, no solution discussed regarding our debt crisis-the personal debt crisis. The fact that a home and an education can only be had at 300k in debt is lunacy. Healthcare reform still needs to take place, And rolling back 10 years is not the answer.

And we then get to anti woman, anti gay, anti working class being the cat call of the party these days. I cannot, in any good conscience, cast a vote for creationism, misogyny, gay hate, and racism.

The Auto Bailout I find interesting, so far as most people who are strong on it have a lot of ignorance and emotion, but few facts. GM and Chrysler are paying back a Loan, and they were restructured to profitability via bankruptcy and sales. The same cannot be said for the top banks or the airlines we have bailed out.

lostlobster wrote:

While I know where you're going with this and I sympathize, however it's no small thing to me to have someone in the White House who is pro gay marriage. The leader of this country can be a force to create social change, and his point of view is much closer to mine than Robotney's.

I am not really going anywhere...I am just thinking about it as a job evaluation.

Atras wrote:

How about so that we get a President for 4 years, instead of 2.5-3? The amount of time spent fund raising and campaigning for the next term is insane - I think it is the best justification for term limits. Longer terms, limit of one!

I can admit that Clinton has been the best two term President since and including Reagan. Reagan was unplugged and Bush went off the deep end. I really do not see the advantage to a 4-year lame duck President.

Greg wrote:

I can admit that Clinton has been the best two term President since and including Reagan. Reagan was unplugged and Bush went off the deep end. I really do not see the advantage to a 4-year lame duck President.

We should get rid of the two term limit, or at least extend it. Our country would be so much better off today if Bill Clinton had been allowed a third or fourth term.

ChrisLTD wrote:
Greg wrote:

I can admit that Clinton has been the best two term President since and including Reagan. Reagan was unplugged and Bush went off the deep end. I really do not see the advantage to a 4-year lame duck President.

We should get rid of the two term limit, or at least extend it. Our country would be so much better off today if Bill Clinton had been allowed a third or fourth term.

Yeah, but just imagine the flustercluck that a 3rd or 4th term Bush would be.

Kannon wrote:

Yeah, but just imagine the flustercluck that a 3rd or 4th term Bush would be.

He barely beat Kerry in 2004, I don't think he would have beat Obama in 2008. Everything he touched turned to s**t, and a majority finally knew it.

Kannon wrote:
ChrisLTD wrote:
Greg wrote:

I can admit that Clinton has been the best two term President since and including Reagan. Reagan was unplugged and Bush went off the deep end. I really do not see the advantage to a 4-year lame duck President.

We should get rid of the two term limit, or at least extend it. Our country would be so much better off today if Bill Clinton had been allowed a third or fourth term.

Yeah, but just imagine the flustercluck that a 3rd or 4th term Bush would be.

I know President Bush gets a lot of hate, some is deserved and some isn't, but who wouldn't seriously take him over the Republican party of today? At least he's a decent person. I still believe that without 9/11 President Bush would have been much better.

KingGorilla wrote:

I am much more concerned with the Republican led House and how cutting into our investments spells long term savings to the US. Cuts to Federal Financial Aid, Federal Work Study, no solution discussed regarding our debt crisis-the personal debt crisis. The fact that a home and an education can only be had at 300k in debt is lunacy. Healthcare reform still needs to take place, And rolling back 10 years is not the answer.

I do not disagree, but I am not so sure that Republican rule will actually bring austerity. It has not happened yet.

KingGorilla wrote:

The Auto Bailout I find interesting, so far as most people who are strong on it have a lot of ignorance and emotion, but few facts. GM and Chrysler are paying back a Loan, and they were restructured to profitability via bankruptcy and sales.

GM was given a government sanctioned pre-structured bankruptcy that put their solvent competitor, Ford, at a serious competitive disadvantage. Plus it screwed all of the stakeholders in GM and left them without recourse. It was not a normal business process. I do not know if it was the right thing to do or not, but it was extraordinary. The fact is that GM was building vehicles that people did not want to buy and did not have the balance sheet to ride out the storm. In part because GMAC was part of the problem.

Ulairi wrote:

I know President Bush gets a lot of hate, some is deserved and some isn't, but who wouldn't seriously take him over the Republican party of today? At least he's a decent person. I still believe that without 9/11 President Bush would have been much better.

Can't believe i'm saying this, but +1 to everything above. Especially the part I bolded. The Bush we got was not the Bush we intended.

ChrisLTD wrote:
Kannon wrote:

Yeah, but just imagine the flustercluck that a 3rd or 4th term Bush would be.

He barely beat Kerry in 2004, I don't think he would have beat Obama in 2008. Everything he touched turned to s**t, and a majority finally knew it.

The majority knew it the first time around, too, but that didn't stop him...

Greg wrote:

I do not disagree, but I am not so sure that Republican rule will actually bring austerity. It has not happened yet.

You willing to take the chance they aren't drinking their own Kool-Aid?

Any President would have gotten Bin Laden. But after that fact, the US is still in Afghanistan. No good reason for that. It's just for drugs, weapons trade and oil.
People are dying for a country that doesn't want them there. That have a huge difference in culture and a government that is corrupt to the bone.
No one should have to die for that sh*t.
I work in the navy and I have worked for the NATO HQ that has ISAF as their main operation.

Financial collapse: Wall Street is still stealing people's money. Banks are still robbing people with their own money. So no good change there either.

Guantanamo Bay is still open - he said he would close it and stating 'you can take that to the bank!'. Anyway....

Clinton was the better one so far (Bill). Especially for the US economy.
So why should he stay? He shouldn't. I would vote for Ron Paul if I was a US citizen.

Greg wrote:
Atras wrote:

How about so that we get a President for 4 years, instead of 2.5-3? The amount of time spent fund raising and campaigning for the next term is insane - I think it is the best justification for term limits. Longer terms, limit of one!

I can admit that Clinton has been the best two term President since and including Reagan. Reagan was unplugged and Bush went off the deep end. I really do not see the advantage to a 4-year lame duck President.

I can't judge Reagan too harshly for his second term, he was ill. He should not have been in the running, if he knew about his illness, and he should have stepped aside when it was discovered.

Sparhawk wrote:

Any President would have gotten Bin Laden.

Not true. Bush didn't get him. And McCain, Romney and Hillary Clinton all said they wouldn't have crossed into Pakistan for military strikes.

Seth wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

I know President Bush gets a lot of hate, some is deserved and some isn't, but who wouldn't seriously take him over the Republican party of today? At least he's a decent person. I still believe that without 9/11 President Bush would have been much better.

Can't believe i'm saying this, but +1 to everything above. Especially the part I bolded. The Bush we got was not the Bush we intended.

Bush, with the 2009-2012 Congress, would probably have left the US teetering on the verge of Greece-level collapse.

I cannot vote for someone who has done what Obama has to civil liberties. The man's administration is deeply, terribly evil and authoritarian, and he does not deserve to be in the big chair.

ChrisLTD wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

Any President would have gotten Bin Laden.

Not true. Bush didn't get him. And McCain, Romney and Hillary Clinton all said they wouldn't have crossed into Pakistan for military strikes.

You can't use arguments for something that didn't happen. They all were not the president. So in the end, we will never know.
Once in office, many things change. Including whatever they said to get your vote and all the fancy promises they made.

Tanglebones wrote:

Bush, with the 2009-2012 Congress, would probably have left the US teetering on the verge of Greece-level collapse.

He has and worse. Just no one bold enough to come and collect it. The counter that's running up so hard, it has become a big joke by now.

Ulairi wrote:

I know President Bush gets a lot of hate, some is deserved and some isn't, but who wouldn't seriously take him over the Republican party of today?

I'll take Romney instead of the guy who pushed giant tax cuts, spent a trillion plus dollars on useless wars, and didn't see the financial crisis coming. Oh, and prohibiting the government from negotiating drug prices under Medicare Part D? Another measure of Bush's quality as president.

I'll always take the possibility of decent over the known suck.

Sparhawk wrote:
ChrisLTD wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

Any President would have gotten Bin Laden.

Not true. Bush didn't get him. And McCain, Romney and Hillary Clinton all said they wouldn't have crossed into Pakistan for military strikes.

You can't use arguments for something that didn't happen. They all were not the president. So in the end, we will never know.
Once in office, many things change. Including whatever they said to get your vote and all the fancy promises they made.

Actually, when the opportunity to send a strike force after Bin Laden during the Battle of Tora Bora presented itself, Rumsfeld and Bush refused to authorize the action. This was a major point of contention in the 2004 election, as Bush & Rumsfeld defended the decision, while Kerry took the opposite view.

Atras wrote:
Greg wrote:
Atras wrote:

How about so that we get a President for 4 years, instead of 2.5-3? The amount of time spent fund raising and campaigning for the next term is insane - I think it is the best justification for term limits. Longer terms, limit of one!

I can admit that Clinton has been the best two term President since and including Reagan. Reagan was unplugged and Bush went off the deep end. I really do not see the advantage to a 4-year lame duck President.

I can't judge Reagan too harshly for his second term, he was ill. He should not have been in the running, if he knew about his illness, and he should have stepped aside when it was discovered.

I think Reagan was one of our worst Presidents. I think the long term affects of his presidency were terrible for the country. Why wouldn't you judge him harshly for knowingly taking the Presidency with a terribly debilitating illness?

I wish Al Gore would run again. I would campaign my ass off for that man.

Malor wrote:

I cannot vote for someone who has done what Obama has to civil liberties. The man's administration is deeply, terribly evil and authoritarian, and he does not deserve to be in the big chair.

I hear what you are saying and while this isnt something I believe in nearly as strongly as you do, I cannot imagine Romney being in any way better.

NathanialG wrote:
Malor wrote:

I cannot vote for someone who has done what Obama has to civil liberties. The man's administration is deeply, terribly evil and authoritarian, and he does not deserve to be in the big chair.

I hear what you are saying and while this isnt something I believe in nearly as strongly as you do, I cannot imagine Romney being in any way better.

Yeah, that's the unfortunate truth. The rise of the national security state has full-throated support from leading Democrats and Republicans.

Greg wrote:
Atras wrote:

How about so that we get a President for 4 years, instead of 2.5-3? The amount of time spent fund raising and campaigning for the next term is insane - I think it is the best justification for term limits. Longer terms, limit of one!

I can admit that Clinton has been the best two term President since and including Reagan. Reagan was unplugged and Bush went off the deep end. I really do not see the advantage to a 4-year lame duck President.

I think it's actually a very good position to be in- a huge opportunity - but it's been squandered some. When you're not having to worry about re-election, you can actually focus more on the things you really want to get accomplished, rather than muddling through some watered down, media-friendly version. Note the word here is "opportunity", which means someone can do a lot of good, a lot of bad, or a lot of waste with it.

For Obama himself, he is a disappointment, but I think he's a disappointment to anyone who believed we reached a point where the two parties can get along and play well. If you look at Obama's campaign, it shouldn't be a surprise how the following 4 years went. I mean, he's definitely failed in some regards (Gitmo, lukewarm financial policy change), and one of his main goals (healthcare) is a walking Frankenstein that I think no one likes.

But for the realist, he's not been a bad President. Anyone who thinks that Obama was going to fix the economy, gas prices, unemployment, and trade in four years is out of their mind or completely ignorant of how these things function. We're in Afghanistan but out of Iraq, which shows a positive trend. Most of the stuff we're looking at is a matter of trending correctly (I emphasize the word "most" here), and people forget that one of the problems we have is that when you want fixes like the ones people want to assign to Obama's failures, they take time.

Bloo Driver wrote:

people forget that one of the problems we have is that when you want fixes like the ones people want to assign to Obama's failures, they take time.

And a congress that will play ball. This one won't even show up to the game, unless they know they can win ahead of time.