I don’t really blame Bush for 9/11, but there is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that conservatives would have blamed Gore if it happened on his watch. What was it that happened last year-- was it the Times Square bomb-- and conservatives were all saying that at least no terrorists attacks happened on Bush’s watch :smack::smack::smack:. Someone here must remember that-- help me out here, did I get it right?
True. He didn’t have to, because every other conservative in the country was constantly doing it for him, right up through the middle of the decade.
There is evidence that Bush wasn’t taking warnings about Al Qaeda seriously enough. So, yes, I think one can make a case to blame him for 9/11. Regardless, he should absolutely be held responsible for things that happen on his watch. I suspect that future historians will hold him responsible. He should also absolutely be held responsible for starting a war on false pretenses.
I have absolutely no doubt that if Gore had been president, conservatives would never, ever let anyone forget that it happened on his watch. Remember all that “wag the dog” crap about Clinton helping out NATO? What would conservatives say if a Democratic president started a war using false intelligence and deceitfulness (such as trying to connect Iraq to 9/11)?
As for the economy, note that the recession started and peaked before Obama took office.
I feel a lack of enthusiasm for both, so I can’t even muster up the willingness to decide if one is slightly less impressive than the other. I think I might just be jaded, though, because I don’t think there’s been a great president in decades. People keep telling me that the president is supposed to be a great man, and I’m still waiting for a presidential election where I’m voting for someone rather than against the other guy… Maybe they just don’t make 'em like they used to.
I think the closest thing Bush attempted in scale to reforming health care was his shot at privatizing Social Security; an effort that died on the vine. Likewise for immigration reform. Bush actually spent a good while on immigration reform just to see it fall apart. Would have been more impressive to see him fight for it for 18 months and have it actually become law.
Eh, I think people forget the details of the first half of the Bush administration. Obama has unquestionably been more effective at getting progressive priorities through congress then Bush was at getting Conservative priorities through. Bush’s major accomplishments were either flawed versions of liberal legislation (Medicare prescription benefit, NCLB, campaign finance reform, Barnes-Oxley), stuff that passed because of 9/11 (Patriot Act, War authorizations, Homeland Security) or free lunches for the tax payers in the form of tax-cuts (which only needed 50 votes in the Senate to get through). Bush’s attempts to get Conservative priorities through that weren’t tax cuts (tax reform, SS privitization) didn’t even make it to the Senate floor.
The Stimulus package, Healthcare reform, financial reform and other smaller bills may not be everything a liberal could want them to be, but they definitely advance liberal priorities in a way Bush was never able to do for Conservative ones.
Yeah, but the question isn’t “is Bush a better Republican than Obama is a Democrat?” The question is, “who is/was the better president?” They both suck.
The answer to your question would unarguably be “Obama,” because Bush was a pretty crappy Republican. While Obama might be a good Democrat, he’s still a crappy president.
Obama is the better President. Not that great, of course. He’s refused to take a clear stance against wiretapping and government spying on private citizens, torture, and other civil rights abuses. Bush, however, was completely wrong about everything. A casual observer of the Bush administration would probably conclude that the man’s goals were to wreck the economy, wreck America’s reputation, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people abroad, harm the environment, and do it all while being as smug and self-righteous as possible. He’s the worse President in history by a mile.
Buchanan let the entire country fall apart on his watch. Literally! It fell apart into two pieces! GWB is definitely in my bottom 10, but Buchanan has an iron-clad lock on that spot.
I think you can grade a president on three metrics: merits of goals, success in executing them, and ability to respond to a crisis.
On a 1-to-10 scale, I’d give GWB a 2 on merits of goals (I agreed with him on AIDS and immigration), only a 5 in success in executing them (he did well on national security issues and tax policies, but didn’t get through much else that was significant) and a 5 in responding to a crisis (balancing out the high marks for 9/11 with the epic fail of Katrina).
Obama I’d give a 7 or 8 on the merits of his goals (my biggest gripe is not rolling back some of Bush’s excesses with regard to national security/intelligence/homeland security) and probably a 7 on execution (the stimulus, health care reform and financial reform are all MASSIVE pieces of legislation, but I dock points because I feel some of the compromises made on them were unnecessary). Obama still gets an incomplete on crisis-handling. Yes, the economy is in crisis, but he knew that months before he even took office. As for the economy, while the stimulus needed to be bigger, even the biggest one they were considering ($1.2 trillion or so) would still probably leave us with at least an 8.5 percent unemployment rate and the Dems facing heavy losses in the next few weeks.
Well, I was responding to another poster, not the OP. But a Presidents efficacy at passing their agenda is a pretty major part of how successful they’re judged in general. Of course some of that depends on how you feel about the actual items on their agenda, but at least on the metric of legislative success I think Obama is pretty easily on pace to be the best President since LBJ, even if the loss of control of Congress slows him down in the next two years.
No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that Simplicio is asking a different question than the OP. The OP questions, “So Who Is/Was The Better President? Bush or Obana? [sic]” and the question that Simplicio poses is more along the lines of, “Who is/was better at implementing their (or their party’s) agenda?” To the latter question, then of course Obama is the clear winner.
I agree that for the types of things that I support, Bush is the worst Republican. At the same time, I also agree that Obama is the worst Democrat (although I’m willing to consider Jimmy Carter). So I can’t answer whether the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat, because I haven’t given a lot of thought to who the best Democrat is (the Democrats used to solid, unified party rather than an accumulation of disparate interests; sadly the Republican party seems to have become that way too, which is why I typically identify as a big-L Libertarian). I can say that I prefer Bush to the current bad Democrat.
I’d counter and say that getting an agenda passed is only how they’re judged by the people that support their agendas. That’s why the general population only gives Obama a miserly approval rating versus a fairly high approval rating by Democrats.
Oh, and polling data is illustrated just to point out general illustrations, and not to suggest that politicians should abide by polling data. Populist movements are just as evil when they come from the right as they are when they come from the left.
Two responses to this point. One, it matters what the situation was like when the guy entered office. By the time Buchanan was elected in 1856, the divisions in the country were already so deep that averting war was probably impossible. One can name things that Buchanan might have done better, but probably it wouldn’t have been enough. George W. Bush, as others have pointed out, stepped into office at a time when things were going extremely well by most measures. He managed to adjust that and have everything going badly by the time he left office.
Second, supposed for the sake of argument that Buchanan did “let the entire country fall apart on his watch”. George W. Bush let the country of Iraq fall apart on his watch, and he didn’t just allow it to happen; he caused it to happen. Before Bush sent troops into Iraq in 2003, there was no warfare in the country, no terrorist campaigns, no daily bombings and shootings in the street, no militias or fundamentalist groups running their own chunks of the country. Because of what Bush did, the Iraqis have all of those things and will continue having them for the forseeable future. In comparing the American Civil War and Dubya’s War, the populations of the countries involved are similar, the death tolls are similar, the toll in human misery is, if anything, higher in Iraq. So even if Buchanan was totally responsible for the American Civil War, I still think that Bush would be the worst president.
However Bush solved his problem in Iraq (although Biden was either blind or dishonest enough to have the Democrats take credit for it) while Buchanan did not solve his problem.
What problem was it that Bush solved in Iraq? If it was Iraq’s WMD program, then the solution was finding out the problem hadn’t existed in the first place. If it was the problem of Iraq being a fucked up country, that’s still an ongoing problem. If the problem was that a lot of Americans were getting killed in Iraq, then Bush didn’t solve that problem - in fact it was a problem he created and it was still a problem when he left office. And finally, if the problem was that Bush had a poor public image for his other screw-ups, then invading Iraq was a short-term solution - but it ended rebounding back on him and making him look worse than before.
