Having discussed the Republican candidates, I want to discuss about the performance of Obama during these 3 years. Obviously no president is liked by all people. If you get 55% of the votes in an reelection then things really had gone well for you. Obama has been criticized by the right and the left. He is not so popular with the independents either. I don't agree with a lot of things he has done. But I would not be so critical of him until I have examined how he compared with other recent presidents. So I will go over the presidents from the time I was in college to the present and see how Obama stacks up with them.

Gerald Ford was a Michigan man so obviously he was a very smart and great man. Of course he was not elected to office and sort of fell into the job. I think this helped his legacy and hurt his chance to get elected against Carter. By replacing Nixon, Ford helped the country get back to normalcy. But by pardoning Nixon, many people were upset and him. They felt he must had a deal with Nixon and that's how he got the job in the first place. So he lost to Carter. Since his stay in office was so short, he basically got an incomplete grade from me.

In many ways Obama is more like Jimmy Carter than others. Of course, Obama would not want the same fate as Carter; an unpopular one termer. Both Carter and Obama are intellectuals, Carter having graduated high in his Naval Academy class. But both tend to over think things. Instead of like Reagan, who acted with confidence, Carter and Obama may seem indecisive at times. Both were dealt bad hands to begin with. Carter faced an energy crisis that hurt the nation's confidence. Obviously Carter did not create the oil crisis. But long gas lines and inflation drove Carter out of office. He also had to face the Iran hostage crisis. When he sent in a rescue mission, it failed miserably. At least Obama killed bin Laden. The one big accomplishment of Carter was bringing Egypt and Israel together. But that was not enough, economy will trump foreign policy any time. By the time Carter left office his approval rating was in the 30s. But as a private citizen, he did great things. This is because as a private person, he can just do what he thinks is good for other people and the world. In retrospect Carter was ahead of his time. When the energy crisis occurred, Carter said that our future depends on NOT depending on foreign oil. He installed solar panels on the White House roof and wore sweaters and turn down the heat. All these things we should have followed up on from the 1970s. As president, the decisions are more complicated, and as I said, Carter over thought.

The opposite may be true of Ronald Reagan. He knew he wanted to defeat the communists and restore American's image as the most powerful. To that end he built up the military. He believed in trickle down economics and to that end he cut taxes. He did not over think, he just acted. He was not a hard sell to Americans in the 80s. Doing opposite of Carter seemed like the right thing to do. Solar panels were taken down from the White House to show that America still has the oil. Taxes were cut since the economy was doing poorly with high taxes. Things did turn around. But was it due to Reagan's policy or just the cycle of the economy? Unemployment was over 10% in 82 and 83, higher than the 7.1% when he took office in 1980. By 1984 election, it had gone down to 7.5% and so with the improvement, Reagan was reelected. There was the stock market crash in 1987 which was attributed to computer trading, forerunner of derivatives today. There was the savings and loan scandal that required a big taxpayer bailout. So two lessons we never learned from the 1980s-poor regulations of securities trading and poor oversight of loans by institutions. As the old saying goes, history does repeat itself. But to the Republicans, Reagan is their god. Every candidate uses his name today. But was it all good back then?

Certainly it was not all good for the elder George Bush. While one may argue that the tax cut helped the economy in the early and mid 80s, it eventually led to huge budget deficit in the Bush years. This forced Bush to go back to his promise of no new taxes. Once again this demonstrates how economics trump foreign policy. Bush had just win the first Gulf war and people expected him to win reelection easily. But the deficit and the eventual broken promise on taxes killed Bush's chance for a second term.

If Reagan is the Republican's god, then Clinton is the Democrat's god. In many ways Clinton was very lucky. Bush having to raise taxes opened a door for Clinton to step in. Over zealous effort by Gingrich led Republicans led to a government shut down helped Clinton with reelection. It is also true that the rise of the computer technology and the internet started a whole slate of profitable businesses helped the economy immensely while Clinton was in office. So Clinton was very lucky. But he was also very talented. When his health initiative did not work, he dumped it. When the Republicans won big in the midterm election of 94, he became much more moderate in his policies, even reforming welfare with the Republicans. In a word, Clinton was nimble. He had his failings, like Somalia. He certainly had personal failings but he managed to get out of jam. People say that when he talks to you, he makes you feel that you are the most important person in the room. It is a great person skill even though it is fake.

The young Bush was in over his head. That is why he had Cheney as his mentor. He really had no understanding of the world and history and he took most of his advice from neocons like Wolfowitz who advocated regime change in Iraq and building democracy in the Middle East. They achieved regime change at a cost of thousands of American lives plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. It took our eyes off bin Laden and Afghanistan. The war cost us 800 billion dollars. A nice sum for the deficit, don't you think? Speaking of deficit, the Bush tax cut didn't help it, did it? I don't blame the depression on Bush. This was mostly the doing of Wall Streets, banks and insurance companies. But certainly his regulations and economic plans did not help.

So how does Obama rate in comparison to these people. As I said he over thinks. For example, I applaud his health plan effort. He believed that Clinton's plan failed because Clinton got no support from the insurance industry and Republicans. Obama tried to get them on board. But ultimately they have no interest in helping him. His concessions like no public option only angered his base. The truth is most economic issues are beyond his control. I think most economists agree that he had to follow Bush's plan and stimulate the economy. He had to save General Motors and the big banks. For the most part he succeeded but the economy is still in bad shape. But is it worse than 3 years into Reagan's presidency? From what I remember, no. The difference is that Reagan did opposite of Carter whereas Obama did pretty much the same as Bush. Even his treasury secretary Geithner is a protege of O'Neil, the treasury secretary under Bush. So to the public Reagan was making improvements like FDR whereas Obama was floundering. As good as an orator as Obama is, he has not given the public a clear vision of what he is trying to do. Reagan told us he was going to beat the Russians. He said the trickle down effect will raise all of us. Whether any of these were true or not, it inspired the public. Obama has not done that.

I think foreign policies wise, Obama has done pretty much what I expected him to do. Having lived abroad, he understands that we can no longer just throw our power around. We have to show others that we are a benign world leader. We are not out to get Muslims nor are we trying to stop China from rising. This does not mean he is going around apologizing for the U.S. as his critics have pointed out. He is in fact helping the U.S. win more friends abroad and this will be vital for our security in the future.

It is too early to know if Obama will be considered a good president. It is too early to tell if he will get a second term. But comparing him with the recent presidents, I see him stronger than others in certain areas and weaker in others. As I mentioned one of his weakness is over thinking. That does not bother me much since I tend to be that way. Perhaps you can tell that is the case after reading this lengthy blog.

There are many people, including people in government, who thought Kim Jong Il was a stupid mad man. Eccentric and ruthless, yes. But stupid, no. Sure, he inherited power from his father. Sure, he was not as charismatic as his father was. Usually sons of politicians are not as capable as the father. But many of his actions that are deemed crazy in the west are in most cases shrewd moves. By playing up his mad man character, it scares the west into thinking that he may use nuclear weapons and thus they are more likely to negotiate with him and give him aid. As I have written before, dictators like Kim and Hussein are not going to use weapons of mass destruction against the west because they know they would not survive the retaliation. Just like Hussein's chemical and biological weapons, Kim's nukes are just for show and as a means of extortion to get concessions.

Now what is next? Well, nobody knows much about his son Kim Jong Un. Supposedly he was educated outside of the country but I don't know where. But in any case I doubt that he would open up the country. I had high hopes for Assad in Syria when he took over for his father because he was a British trained physician. Surely he would be less despotic than his father. But that turned out not to be true. So it is likely the young Kim will not be much different than his father in term of policies. Even if he is different, I think the old generals in the military would control him, maybe use him as a puppet. But one thing for sure, after a transition period, we should try to engage the North Koreans as quickly as possible. I think trying to isolate them would be a mistake. You always try to keep your enemies close to you so you understand them better. We should try to understand the young Kim as soon as possible. I know China will be trying to do this because the last thing they want is for the regime to collapse, spilling millions of refugees into China.

Finally, I think we really have no great reason to keep thousands of troops in South Korea. The South Koreans are perfectly capable of fighting off a convention attack from the north. And if the north use nukes, we would have to respond with nukes. We can do this from anywhere, including the Pacific fleet. We don't have to have soldiers at the DMZ to use nukes. In fact if the north is crazy enough to use nukes, then having our soldiers there would just add to our casualties. So, we don't need a big base in Korea. Ron Paul is right on about this, we don't have to spread our military all over the world to protect us and our allies.

Parade magazine had an article on Romney last week. A few weeks earlier it had an article about Rick Perry. Given Perry's fall since then, I wonder if this would jinx Romney. With the Iowa caucus coming up soon, I have decided to put my 2 cents worth out there about the Republican candidates. If none of them win the nomination and somebody like Donald Trump wins then I know I have jinx power and I promise I will write about Trump then.

Mitt Romney has been the front runner from the beginning. He is the Republican establishment's candidate because they believe that he has the best chance to defeat Obama. I would agree with that. He has not been able to get more than 25% of the Republicans to support him because the conservatives have a deep mistrust of him. Frankly I don't understand. This man has been married to the same woman about 40 years. He is by all account a good husband and father and is a christian who has helped many people in his church. Maybe his policies were not always conservative in the past but he has live a life of conservative values, much more so than many others who claim to have strong morals.

I will agree that Romney is probably among the most moderate, along with Paul and Huntsman. I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think he will repeal Obamacare and I don't think he will try to make abortion illegal. I don't think his credential as a businessman is necessary a positive. He made a lot of money but he had money to begin with. His company made money by downsizing companies and get rid of jobs. He went to France for his Mormon mission and I think that is a positive. He has been a hawk on the campaign trail which means I don't agree with him. But I think part of that is to attack Obama, I don't think he will be so hawkish if he is elected. Overall, Romney is a guy that I can be friend with. I would not vote for him but I would not be devastated if he is elected.

Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is someone I loath. Talking about hypocrisy! Cheating on your wife while she is dying? The only other person in that same level is John Edwards. I don't consider adultery a game breaker because otherwise we would have eliminated 50% of the population right off the bat. But people like Gingrich, Edwards and those guys that are closet homosexuals who rail against gays should be disqualified on moral grounds.

With Gingrich, adultery is not the only moral issue. He had been censored by his fellow Congressmen in the past. Yet he has made millions lobbying for Freddie Mac. Republicans such as Tom Coburn, Peter King and Guy Molinari have come out against Gingrich. He says Obama has "Kenyan anti-colonial views" I guess Gingrich thinks that having African ancestry and being anti-colonialism is bad. I don't know if Obama actually has those views but the comment makes Gingrich seem very narrow minded to me. Gingrich also makes statement like "If Iran gets nuclear weapons then we should consider regime change." That sounds like war to me. This shows how dangerous a Gingrich presidency would be. Gingrich, to me, is unqualified to be president and would be a dangerous choice.

Ron Paul is not going to win. He may run as a third party candidate which would ensure Obama's reelection. I like Paul. I think he is sincere in his beliefs. While I don't agree with him on many policies, especially in foreign affairs, I respect his thinking. For example, I disagree with him on getting out of UN and NATO because I think isolationism will be detrimental to our security. I don't agree with him about stopping all foreign aid. But I agree with him in that a lot of the aid goes to rich people in poor countries and do not get to the people that we are trying to help. He is the only candidate who says Israel should not get aid because it can take care of itself. Overall, I can be friend with Paul and would be acceptable to me if gets elected.

Jon Huntsman would be my choice for the Republican nomination. He is obviously not going to win. He is basically Romney light to most Republicans. I don't know why he is even running. But his credential as a moderate is solid. He was a decent governor of Utah. He was ambassador to China, appointed by Obama. He speaks fluent Chinese and was not afraid to speak out against China when appropriate. But he understands, unlike most of other candidates, that bullying China is not going to work. Having travel around the world as a Mormon missionary and as a diplomat means that he has more foreign experience than others and I think a better understanding of the world.

I don't want to waste more time on the other three. Michelle Bachmann is Sarah Palin light. I would give her some credit of her work as a foster parent. Rick Perry is way out of his league when he leaves Texas. Rick Santorum? He is Michelle Bachmann light.

So basically my three choices in order are Huntsman, Paul and Romney. I can live with one of these three getting elected. God help us if Gingrich sneaks in. Ultimately I think Romney will win the nomination and is 50-50 against Obama with the state of the economy determining the general election.

It is the bowl season and once again I am giving you my AAAAA ie the Angry Asian American Accurate Assessment. In addition to my usual predictions on Big Ten teams, I will rename the bowls these teams play in. I will also rename a few of the other bowls because it seems like the matchups were done on purpose by the NCAA to be funny or ironic. So here we go:

Nevada and Soutern Mississippi will play in the Gambling Bowl as there are casinos along the Mississippi River.

Texas vs Cal in the Shamless Begging Bowl. Remember a few years ago Texas begged voters who put them into the Rose Bowl ahead of Cal. Cal will look to revenge this.

FSU vs. Notre Dame in Not Able to Live up to Potential Bowl #1. Both teams were expected to be at or near the Top Ten this year.

Oklahoma vs Iowa in Not Able to Live up to Potential Bowl #2. This is the first game for a Big Ten team so my prediction is Oklahoma wins.

Texas A@M vs Northwestern in the Compass Bowl as A@M is now in the Southeastern Conference. A@M wins.

UCLA vs Illinois in the Back In Bowl. Neither team deserves to be in a bowl game. Illinois wins this ugly contest.

Penn State vs Houston in We've got a problem Bowl. PSU has more problems but I am picking PSU because Houston barely beat UCLA at home.

Nebraska vs South Carolina in the Also Ran Bowl. Both are mediocre in their conference. How did they end up in the Capitol Bowl? I pick Nebraska since I don't like Spurrier.

Georgia vs MSU in the Playoff Bowl. In the old NFL the runnerup in each conference played in the Playoff Bowl. I pick MSU. Georgia couldn't beat Boise State.

Florida vs OSU in the Urban Bowl. Wonder who is he rooting for? I pick OSU as I think Broxton Miller is getting better with each game.

Oregon vs Wisconsin in the Previous Loser Bowl. They are the last 2 losers of the Rose Bowl. I pick Oregon. They are just too fast.

Stanford vs Oklahoma State is the Consolation Bowl. Either one could have been in the championship game instead of this one.

Michigan vs Virginia Tech in the Undeserve Bowl. Kansas State and Boise State are better qualified. I pick Michigan. VT lost to Clemson who has a mobile qb. Denard is much faster that Clemson's qb.

So tally shows Big Ten going 6-3.

I see that all the Republican candidates other that Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman are giving Obama grief about not saying that the U.S. is an exception nation. Refusing to say that the U.S. is exceptional would mean that Obama is unpatriotic, according these republicans. I take EXCEPTION to this because I think people who blindly believe that the U.S. is exceptional will be the people who lead us to disaster. I think THAT would be unpatriotic.

When has an empire ever NOT believe that it is exceptional, that its culture and morals are superior to those nations, tribes or ethnic groups who are less powerful than it is? I think Obama is right when he pointed out that the Greeks, Egyptians and Romans all thought that they were exceptional. I know the Chinese did. Who would call themselves the Middle Kingdom if they were not egocentric? What do all these once powerful nations have in common? They turned out NOT to be exceptional and are no longer powerful.

Yes, we are a better people than those of the previous great empires. For one, we stopped slavery after about a hundred years. Our women can vote, unlike those of other empires. We had civil right movements in the 1960s, less than 200 years after our founding. I would think that if we are really exceptional, we would be farther ahead given that we could have learned from thousands of years of world history. Some say that our constitution and our freedom is what set us apart from these old empires. But didn't the British have their Magna Carta? Were they not a freed people in the 19th and 20th century? It can be argued that the British empire in its heydays was more dominant than we are today. I am sure the British felt that they were exceptional and look where they are at today.

If there is an advantage for the U.S. over other empires of the past, it is that we get more immigrants than all those other empires. Immigration brings in fresh talent and immigrants push the native born to do better. Can you imagine if we did not have Jewish, Italian, Irish, German, Indian and Chinese immigrants? I do not think that we could have maintained our status for so long. As long as we continue to welcome immigrants, our chance of remaining a great country will be good.

Yes, we are a great country. The best in the world today. Otherwise, immigrants would not be flocking over here. But we are not exceptional. We will not stay great unless we become greater. Instead of patting ourselves in the back, we should try to improve ourselves. We have a high infant mortality rate compare with other rich nations. Our life expectancy is lower than most of the rich nations. We have poor public high schools. We have a rich-poor gap that is widening. We have a high murder rate, especially with guns. We have a huge drug problem. There is a lot of work to be done. I think the politicians who think that we are exception will not lead us to improvement but will lead us down the road to mediocrity as previous great empires have gone.