Tell it to the troops.
How exactly? Has terrorism gotten worse during Obama’s administration than it was during Bush’s? Has Obama started more wars than Bush did? Obama may have economic problems but his administration faced economic problems when it started. Bush started with economic prosperity and created economic problems.
The real difference is, nobody went into Iraq who didn’t willingly join the armed forces at some point. (This is slightly before my time, but, IIRC, there was a time when 19 was old enough to die for your country, but not old enough in 46 states to vote for the person who made that decision.)
Yeah but you can’t say Bush inherited a recession. And you certainly can’t claim he inherited the sort of economy that Obama inherited.
[quote=“Qin_Shi_Huangdi, post:32, topic:605578”]
How would the deadlock against Iraq over WMDs have turned out then? There are those who think that Gore would have invaded Iraq just later after gaining international support.
There are those who think the British royal family are actually lizards. We would NEVER have gained international support. That is why we invaded when we did. There was no building sense of urgency that would eventually lead to broad international support, the sense of urgency was FADING and that is why we moved so precipitously so taht kids like you can look back and say “well at the time it looked like it might have been a good idea” because with the passage of time it was clear that the coalition of the “willing” would come to the same conclusion as the other 90% of the world and realize that there were no WMDs worth worrying about.
And OBL was in Iraq?
And you don’t think Democrats can do a side by side comparison of Bush with such a Republican candidate?
If by “some” you mean the vast majority of the world, the UN, NATO, etc. sure but what else you got?
You made it sound like the whole country was happy. I don’t think getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth it. Do you?
At this point in time, I’m sure that being tied to Obama is a bigger detriment than being tied to Bush. Bush left office nearly three years ago. Most voters aren’t concerned with what happened that long ago, but rather their economic well-being at present.
The problem is that the “most voters” you’re relying on to vote against Obama in 2012 are the same “most voters” you were relying on to vote against him in 2008. You need to face the fact that you apparently don’t have a representative sample.
I have no idea what you’re getting at in your post, but (1) I voted for Obama in 2008 and (2) last I checked, Bush had a higher approval rating than did Obama, due partly to more people viewing Bush more favorably the further out from his presidency we go and more people viewing Obama more unfavorably the further into his presidency he goes. Whatever happened in 2008 before the start of Obama’s presidency will have little bearing on the election next year as when compared to what Obama has done during his presidency.
They could make such a comparison; a clip of Bush promising lower taxes and then a clip of Romney promising lower taxes. Do you think it would change very many minds? Lots of Republicans still want all the things Bush promised them, regardless of how it turned out when Bush tried to deliver them.
The classic question is “are you better off now than you were four years ago”, in which case conditions at the end of the Bush presidency are entirely relevant. If the economy changes as quickly in the summer of '12 as it did four years previous, who knows what the answer to that question will be by election day.
Yes. They’re running on killing off the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and killing off a few government agencies.