Fair point. You’re correct that this wasn’t my intention.
I have difficulty giving Obama much credit for this. It seems that he just changed his opinion when the public opinion changed.
You say this like it’s a bad thing!
Except that that’s totally wrong. Name a legitimate accomplishment of the Bush administration (such as the auto industry bailout), and democrats will acknowledge it. And even in this thread you’ve seen various liberals call out Obama on some of his failings and things we disagree with him on. It’s not just partisanship - some presidents are legitimately better than others. Bush was a huge stinker. Obama is, at worst, “meh”.
Bush is worse. He did almost nothing right in eight years. Obama kills a lot of terrorists and helped get rid of Qaddafi without getting us involved in a quagmire, so he’s the better President. Although it’s a low bar.
Bush was the worst president of our lifetimes.
Obama has done some things I disapprove of and not done some things I wish that he had. I think his biggest shortcoming is believing that he could put an end to partisan politics. Didn’t happen. Republicans were determined from literally the day he was sworn in to fight him on every front. On health care, Obama bent over backward offering concession after concession until finally realizing that Republicans were not going to take “yes” for an answer. He also refused to consider prosecuting Bush and Cheney for war crimes, continued with the so-called Patriot Act, and continued domestic spying. He was far too generous to Republicans in allowing the Bush tax cuts to continue for virtually all but the richest Americans. He cannot articulate the benefits of the ACA to save his soul and he allowed the right wing to cripple it by not fighting back against the lies they were pushing against it. He probably reasoned that Americans were too smart to listen to such hare-brained lies, but he was wrong.
Still, he got some things right, ending discrimination against gays in the military, appointing outstanding Supreme Court justices, avoided boots on the ground in Libya, passed the stimulus, let the shuttle die a deserved death, and other things too numerous to list.
So all in all, I’d rate Obama as a slightly above average president.
George Bush, on the other hand, was an unqualified disaster, the worst in history. Irag, torture, ill-conceived tax cuts, unfunded Medicare benefits, saber-rattling, axis of evil, rendition,…
Nm
Whaddya know. You’re correct. I mistakenly thought that because the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was sponsored by 3 Republicans that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was done under Bush. I retract my criticism in this regard. Bush, et al, has done enough damage to the US and other countries without attributing to him something he had nothing to do with.
Speaking from the Right…
Obviously, Obama and I have very different rinciples and priorities. Even if he were a much better leader and a much more ffective Chief Executive, it stands to reason I’d be unhappy with his performance. As it is, I consider him a bad President but not a particularly disastrous one.
Bush was a disaster in every way, and ESPECIALLY from a conservative standpoint. He started what we all know now was an unnecessary war, one that has killed numerous people, that has empowered Islamic militants, and that has made it difficult (if not impossible) for our allies to trust us again. Obama has not handled the Middle East well, but let’s face it: Bush left him an unbelievable mess.
Beyond that, Bush was a profligate spender, he was an irresponsible administrator, and had no principles that resemble traditional conservatism (Harriet Miers proved that cronyism was his only guiding principle).
Also speaking from the right, I agree with astorian’s assessment completely.
Speaking from the north (so not particularly well informed), it’s obviously Bush.
The Bush debacles have been mentioned above.
I am impressed that Obama was able to get something going, finally, to remedy what from this foreigner’s perspective is the ‘American Shame’ - the absence of universal health care. And, he managed to do it despite the oppositional defiant antics of the Republicans (runners up for the ‘American Shame’ award).
We have universal health care now? I think you might get corrected on that one.
I was sloppy and should have said ‘began to address the absence of universal health care’.
Actually, maybe I wasn’t. I said “Obama . . . began to get something going . . . to remedy . . . the absence of universal health care”.
Don’t see why your snark.
Actually, that began with LBJ with Medicare and Medicaid, was continued by President Clinton with SCHIP, and continued by President Bush with Medicare Part D.
ACA is just another step, and not a particularly notable one compared to the other steps.
Then why the rabid opposition to it if it was ‘not a particularly notable step.’?
Both are bad in different ways.
Bush = war in Iraq
Obama = trillions of extra $ national debt
Because Republicans are determined not to give Obama a win on any front, even though the ACA is nowhere near the disaster Republicans promised and hoped it would be. They have nothing left but to dismiss its significance.
We could have had UHC, or at least have gotten much closer to it than we are, had it not been for the concerted efforts of your team and, admittedly, Obama’s caving.
I’ve enjoyed your “evolution” from decrying the ACA as disastrous, predicting it will destroy itself, complaining about the rollout, finally bitterly accepting that it probably won’t go away, to the understanding that it’s actually pretty successful. You still try and subtly criticize it as above, of course, but in another year or two you’ll come around to recognizing that it is, as Joe Biden said, a “big fucking deal”.
You kids.
Johnson and Nixon were both President in my lifetime.