Is Obama a better president than George W. Bush?

[Gups]

No problem in principle with Bush starting either war but the psot-war strategy in both cases has been terrible and has left America appearing less powerful than it did a decade ago.

Don't know about Bush's domestic record. My impression is that No Child Left Behind has not been very successful and struggling to think of any other major domestic iniatives he put forward in his presidency.

[CountDeMoney]

Obama has avoided Dubya-level fuckups, and he doesn't sound like a moron, so I am inclined to like him more.  It's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office.  BY this point in his first term, Dubya had gained the admiration of the world for letting OBL successfully attack the US and then forcefully responding to the attack, but had also gotten the US mired down in a war it could have won easily had an incompetent administration not fucked it up so badly.

By comparison, Obama hasn't been tested.  I don't think we will really be able to answer this question for another four years.  If we end up with a second four years as idle as the first four, then I think we will have to conclude that Obama was a nice guy who should never have been president, and thus inferior to the not-so-nice and not-so-bright guy who, nonetheless, grew into being a legit president.

I wonder how successful Dubya would've been if the loyal opposition in Congress wasn't so afraid to offer the slightest resistance in the post 9/11 years to anything the POTUS did, and he had been saddled with as hateful and visceral a Congress as Obama has been.

[garbon]

Obama has avoided Dubya-level fuckups, and he doesn't sound like a moron, so I am inclined to like him more.  It's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office.  BY this point in his first term, Dubya had gained the admiration of the world for letting OBL successfully attack the US and then forcefully responding to the attack, but had also gotten the US mired down in a war it could have won easily had an incompetent administration not fucked it up so badly.

By comparison, Obama hasn't been tested.  I don't think we will really be able to answer this question for another four years.  If we end up with a second four years as idle as the first four, then I think we will have to conclude that Obama was a nice guy who should never have been president, and thus inferior to the not-so-nice and not-so-bright guy who, nonetheless, grew into being a legit president.

I wonder how successful Dubya would've been if the loyal opposition in Congress wasn't so afraid to offer the slightest resistance in the post 9/11 years to anything the POTUS did, and he had been saddled with as hateful and visceral a Congress as Obama has been.

Yes, because Obama had a very Republican congress his first two years...

[CountDeMoney]

Obama has avoided Dubya-level fuckups, and he doesn't sound like a moron, so I am inclined to like him more.  It's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office.  BY this point in his first term, Dubya had gained the admiration of the world for letting OBL successfully attack the US and then forcefully responding to the attack, but had also gotten the US mired down in a war it could have won easily had an incompetent administration not fucked it up so badly.

By comparison, Obama hasn't been tested.  I don't think we will really be able to answer this question for another four years.  If we end up with a second four years as idle as the first four, then I think we will have to conclude that Obama was a nice guy who should never have been president, and thus inferior to the not-so-nice and not-so-bright guy who, nonetheless, grew into being a legit president.

I wonder how successful Dubya would've been if the loyal opposition in Congress wasn't so afraid to offer the slightest resistance in the post 9/11 years to anything the POTUS did, and he had been saddled with as hateful and visceral a Congress as Obama has been.

Yes, because Obama had a very Republican congress his first two years...

And how's the last two years been going?

[garbon]

Obama has avoided Dubya-level fuckups, and he doesn't sound like a moron, so I am inclined to like him more.  It's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office.  BY this point in his first term, Dubya had gained the admiration of the world for letting OBL successfully attack the US and then forcefully responding to the attack, but had also gotten the US mired down in a war it could have won easily had an incompetent administration not fucked it up so badly.

By comparison, Obama hasn't been tested.  I don't think we will really be able to answer this question for another four years.  If we end up with a second four years as idle as the first four, then I think we will have to conclude that Obama was a nice guy who should never have been president, and thus inferior to the not-so-nice and not-so-bright guy who, nonetheless, grew into being a legit president.

I wonder how successful Dubya would've been if the loyal opposition in Congress wasn't so afraid to offer the slightest resistance in the post 9/11 years to anything the POTUS did, and he had been saddled with as hateful and visceral a Congress as Obama has been.

Yes, because Obama had a very Republican congress his first two years...

And how's the last two years been going?

Maybe if the Dems had gotten along better during the first 2 years, they'd still have some power.  Seems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.

[derspiess]

And how's the last two years been going?

"GRIDLOCK!!!"

[CountDeMoney]

Sems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.

  Funny.

Anyway, won't matter this year, as the Democrats are going to run a fucking train on the GOP in November.

[Sheilbh]

It's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office. 

Stimulus and bailout that stopped the economy's continuing crash (though W deserves some credit for some of the bailouts).  The biggest domestic reform since, at least, Reagan. 

The only plausible thing I think he could have done more domestically is tax reform/grand bargain.  But I don't think that could have been passed by this Congress and I hope he campaigns on it.

In foreign policy the death of Osama bin Laden is an achievement.  It's difficult to say, yet, but I think his handling of the Arab uprising's been pretty adept and I think Asian policy in particular's been strong - I'm also delighted with the new focus on Brazil which could be the end of drift in South America.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe if the Dems had gotten along better during the first 2 years, they'd still have some power.  Seems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.

Agreed.  Democrats are arrogant, lazy, bad communicators and unable to unite when it matters

[derspiess]

Sems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.

  Funny.

Anyway, won't matter this year, as the Democrats are going to run a fucking train on the GOP in November.

Bookmarked.

[CountDeMoney]

Maybe if the Dems had gotten along better during the first 2 years, they'd still have some power.  Seems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.

Agreed.  Democrats are arrogant, lazy, bad communicators and unable to unite when it matters

Actually, I do fault Obama on one particular point, and that was his hands-off approach to Congressional leadership:  for somebody coming from Chicago, when it came to Pelosi and Reid, he certainly didn't do it The Chicago Way.
Should've bashed their fucking heads together and told them who the fucking HNIC was.  But no, they were out of control.

[CountDeMoney]

Sems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.

  Funny.

Anyway, won't matter this year, as the Democrats are going to run a fucking train on the GOP in November.

Bookmarked.

And I bookmark your bookmark.  With a fucking fetus in a jar.

[garbon]

Maybe if the Dems had gotten along better during the first 2 years, they'd still have some power.  Seems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.

Agreed.  Democrats are arrogant, lazy, bad communicators and unable to unite when it matters

Pelosi gave a whole speech about that recently.

[garbon]

Sems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.

  Funny.

Yes we can all have fun when we crop quotes.

[Sheilbh]

Actually, I do fault Obama on one particular point, and that was his hands-off approach to Congressional leadership:  for somebody coming from Chicago, when it came to Pelosi and Reid, he certainly didn't do it The Chicago Way.
Should've bashed their fucking heads together and told them who the fucking HNIC was.  But no, they were out of control.

I think this is tough.  It's easy to say they were wrong.  But I think the Administration was staffed with lots of Clinton veterans and the Clintons themselves were advising.  I think all of that advice would have been that the White House should let the negotiations happen in public, let Congress take the lead and 'own' healthcare reform and basically do everything to avoid what happened with Hillarycare.

Admittedly I don't think they expected another Kirstol-style 'kill the bill' strategy.  But if they'd knocked heads together more then we don't know what would've happened, they may have lost Baucus or Nelson.  (Edit:  Or of course it could have worked and been passed quicker and communicated better.  As I say I genuinely don't know which was right but I think they chose their strategy on this for good reasons.)