In October 2008, I wrote a letter to this paper questioning how we could consider electing a president we knew so little about.
He had no record of achievement, and some pretty unsavory characters in his background. Fast forward to October 2012 and the question becomes now that we know him, or at least the effects of his policies, how could we consider re-electing him?
When Obama took office in January 2009 we had gone through an economic downturn, with unemployment standing at an unacceptable 7.3 percent, and a president who Mr. Obama called unpatriotic for accumulating $4 trillion in new debt over 8 years.
Mr. Obama's policies have resulted in an additional $6 trillion in debt, with nothing to show for it. Unemployment is still unacceptably high. In fact there has never been a day during Obama's presidency when more Americans were employed than there were on Mr. Bush's last day.
Record numbers of Americans are in poverty and receiving food stamps. Gas prices have doubled, and billions have been squandered trying to stimulate "green energy" projects that are not economically viable while ignoring opportunities to stimulate jobs in the private sector by curtailing drilling activity on the Gulf Coast and killing the Keystone pipeline.
None of this should come as a surprise. Government spending is not and has never been a recipe for sustained economic prosperity.
When Ronald Reagan rescued us from Jimmy Carter's economy which was far worse than the economy inherited by Mr. Obama, he pursued policies that limited government intrusion in business, and provided individuals with incentives for their efforts through lower taxes. The result was an economic boom that lasted for more than 20 years.
Mr. Obama has pursued the opposite policies that - increased government intrusion in business and increased personal dependency on government and reduced incentive for personal achievement. The results have also been the opposite.
Hopefully we will be rescued from Obama's economy in November.