Rating The 2012 Candidates


Level of commitment to get results for the country rather than for the party.
    Willingness to work together and compromise as necessary to get a win-win to some degree
Level of integrity
Level of ethics in action
Level of attack, negative, political games, juvenile behavior
Level of understanding of the issues, including financial understanding especially.

The prime of the rating system would be largely based on their acting as an "adult":

Making decisions and leading the nation based on reasoning, facts, and knowledge.

Indications of the opposite would be:

Complaining, making excuses
Blaming the "opposition" or predecessors
Manipulating facts and rhetoric in order to do "make-wrong" of the other group(s)
Evilizing the "opposition" or components of society
Distorting facts

This rating system could be used for pundits, even though their function is different.


After this, I added some special sections Evaluating Obama's Presidency, Romney, Obama Vs. Romney On
The Issues, Huntsman.   And Rating The 2012 Candidates .

A-  Mitt Romney, smartest in running things, but charisma problem

B+, downgraded to a C -,  Obama.   Good character, some lack of realism, let Presidential role down in describing people as Fat Cats plus other behavior as that.  Good values but unfortunately lack of experience has been a major hindrance.  Not putting forth a true plan and having a budget that was rejected 97-0 in the Senate appears to be a lack of leadership and a lack of considering the long term enormity of the facts - see The Actual US Total Debt and also The Report Card.   See the discusion I feel compelled to add in 10/11: Barack Obama.

B+ Huckabee

Not qualified

    Sarah Palin - Is there really any doubt?  Great personality and a public force for conservatives, however, though biased and often offputting and divisive.  She is more of an entertainer and "pundit" than a true politician.


A- Tea Party - A- on being very principled and for self organizing and making a stand, not experienced in political arena, a great influence, booboos politically
B+ Joe Biden - Or higher, as we cannot see all he does behind the scenes.  Is a practical and effective behind the scenes political guy.  A real, positive surprise.
B  John Boehner - Possible.  We'll see whether he is true blue.

C-  McCain
D   Nancy Pelosi - Stonewalls, but extremely effective, doesn't understand some factual or reasoning items.
D   Mitch McConnell - Bad sound bites and lack of clarity in negative statement:  "#1 priority is to defeat Obama".
D   Harry Reid



Leading in order to stonewall the Democrats is not a noble effort nor a benefit to the country.  It is politics before ethics and benefitting the country.

He seems committed to some level of bipartisanship - we'll see.


The minority leader in the Senate stated a hostile, negative objective of "having the #1 priority be to assure Bush does not have a second term."  Not impressive, not positive, not forwarding.  Explaining that it was necessary in order to be able to achieve a better result that would not be possible with a President who would veto the repeal of Health Care and other possibly good (in McConnell's opininon) would be of a much more constructive tenor.

Leading in order to stonewall the Democrats is not a noble effort nor a benefit to the country.  It is politics before ethics and benefitting the country.


I would give him a B+.  He did put forth a stimulus package which, at the minimum, helped restore some faith that the economy was not going to collapse.  73% of business economists say there was no effect, but, as an economist in my training, I cannot see how there could not have been a positive economic effect - saving the economy from a worst result is commendable and worth noting.

His Health Care bill, though flawed, could be the start of a true net benefit for Americans.  The ruse as to it paying for itself and reducing the deficit was, however, a negative.  Taking $500 billion from Medicare and using that to "offset" the cost of the Health Care plan was actually a tax (taking away from) of those in Medicare.  And being "not upfront" about the actual cost of insuring non-insurables with preexisting conditions is huge, though a worthy goal.  It was not acknowledged that we were going to have to pay for those people.  Smoke and mirrors are not ethical.  Nevertheless, the greater good is enhanced, I believe.

The saving of General Motors and Chrysler was, in my opinion, brilliant and necessary.  It prevented a permanent loss of jobs for the US. 

TARP (called the "bank bailout") was actually passed under Bush's leadership, so Obama can't be faulted for it.  However, I believe Bush's administration deserves much credit for the obvious saving of  our economy from a  huge collapse, which would have lead to higher unemployment and a depression, in my opinion.

One mistake of Obama's was to not sufficiently inform the public of what he has done nor of the value and logic of what is involved.  Although he acknowledged this, in a sense, he actually acknowledged that he legislated without adequately "persuading" - this has a very different connotation than just informing, as it could include deceptive or biased presentations.

He inherited a deficit from Bush.  The deficit is not to be blamed on him, though, of course, he has an obligation to reduce it.


Very effective.  Deceptive and negative.
Her statement about "don't read the health care bill now..." is one of the great contrasts with being honest, authentic, and responsible.


Effective.  Deceptive and negative.

He says there is no real problem with social security, nothing to deal with right now.  He apparently is not a financial or business type thinker, or he would not "kick the can down the road" and he would realize the power of compounding.  He needs to be educated!  Not a man I would trust competence-wise!!!!!


Though relatively unknowledgeable in terms of politics, it is highly commendable.  It focuses on smaller government, freedom, and not saddling our kids with debt.  The small fringe element that joins the rallies is unpreventable and insignificant - the criticism and attempt to paint all the tea party with racism or extremism is unethical and negative.

ratings - without feedback on where the imporvements could be made and a basis for rejecting in voting for the congressman
to rate need to have a rating of individual items, one by the site itself and perhaps an average of ratings of others, which coulod be , of course, biased.
  http://www.thenewiq.com/pirt  good idea for basis to rate politicians but doesn;t do itlll not published i couldn;t find     provides Complete ten module Integrity Makeover curriculum, including all self-assessments and exercises, basic Energy Psychology Self-Help instructions and basic success strategies for optimizing the results you get. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08099/871302-51.stm article. 

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=9490 for actual info on backgrounds, still need overall competency rating, competency in the area working in..


ask men top 10 polls crazy commentators http://www.askmen.com/top_10/celebrity/top-10-crazy-political-commentators_8.html#