Yesterday we reported that MSNBC president Phil Griffin said he has had to scold an "over the top" Ed Schultz multiple times, even admitting Schultz has "crossed the line" on several occasions. I wonder if Schultz claiming Obama's first two years are "far better" than Reagan's first two will prompt such a scolding?
I'll leave the retort to Noel Sheppard over at NewsBusters:
Consider that in Reagan's first two years, he ended the air traffic controllers' strike, enacted the largest tax cut in history, and signed into law the Job Training Partnership Act which helped get America working again.
By contrast, Obama's signature piece of legislation, ObamaCare, just had a key element found to be un-Constitutional by a federal judge possibly leading to its eventual demise.
As for his efforts to get the economy going, his first stimulus package in February of last year was such a disaster that he and former President Bill Clinton recently told the American people that it was necessary to extend the Bush tax cuts in order to avoid further economic damage.
Lest we forget the shellacking Obama just took at the polls whereby he lost more seats in the House than any President since Truman in 1948 while losing six seats in the Senate.
By comparison, Reagan actually gained two seats in the Senate adding to the Republican majority in his first midterm elections while losing only 28 seats in the already Democrat-controlled House.
Add it all up, and you've got to be on something really special to think that Obama's not just had a great first two years in office, but also he did a far better job than Reagan during the same time frame.