Is Obama a better president than George W. Bush?

[CountDeMoney]

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.)

Rahm Emanuel's departure said it all.  If he were allowed to do what he needed to do--hell, if they even bothered to listen to him--things would've turned out differently.  They would've been better prepared for the adversarial approach the GOP and the Teabaggers were going to take re: Obama's "illegitimacy".

Sorta like how Haig was pushed out of the Reagan Administration by all of the Gipper's California cronies.  The tallest nail always gets hammered down.

AND THE FIRST FUCKER THAT MENTIONS YOU KNOW WHAT GETS A TEMP BAN

[garbon]

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.)

All that sounds like is that they failed to consider that 2008 wasn't the early 90s.

[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.

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

I bookmarked your bookmarking of my bookmark.  And I raise you two dead cats.

[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.

I bookmarked your bookmarking of my bookmark.  And I raise you two dead cats.

[derspiess]

Ditto

[Razgovory]

I think Bush isn't give enough credit for his healthcare-reforms.  Sure they didn't help or work, but they did spend lots of cash.  It seems we all forgot about those.

[CountDeMoney]

I think Bush isn't give enough credit for his healthcare-reforms.  Sure they didn't help or work, but they did spend lots of cash.  It seems we all forgot about those.

The deficit remembers the Prescription Drug Program just fine.

[Razgovory]

I think Bush isn't give enough credit for his healthcare-reforms.  Sure they didn't help or work, but they did spend lots of cash.  It seems we all forgot about those.

The deficit remembers the Prescription Drug Program just fine.

I wonder if his social security scheme would have run into the same hurdles as Obama Care.  Ah, well.  My dad got a new medication recently.  Costs like 1500 for a bottle.  Mission Accomplished!

[CountDeMoney]

I think Bush isn't give enough credit for his healthcare-reforms.  Sure they didn't help or work, but they did spend lots of cash.  It seems we all forgot about those.

The deficit remembers the Prescription Drug Program just fine.

I wonder if his social security scheme would have run into the same hurdles as Obama Care.

Of course not.  Social Security in the hands of Wall Street?  What could possibly happen?

[Josephus]

It's not so much that Obama hasn't done as much as Bush, it's just that what Obama did do (saving the world from economic collapse for a little while longer) isn't as sexy as, well, bombing Iraqi children to smithereeens and then declaring the war to be over. And you have to give Obama credit for nailing two (2) crazy maniacs (Gadaffi/Ossama) to Bush's one (1) (Saddam.) And Bush didn't have to spend the first half of his term proving he was American. So I go with Obama. Obama's failures, whatever they may be, were mostly due to a hostile congress.

[grumbler]

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.

A garbon says, Obama didn't have congressional opposition for two years.  He still didn't get much done.

Later in the two first terms, things would reverse, as you note.  Still, Dubya overcame genuine opposition to get his second term, whereas Obama has been faced with Send In the Clowns.  I don't know whether this bodes well for Obama's second term, or poorly.

[CountDeMoney]

Still, Dubya overcame genuine opposition to get his second term, whereas Obama has been faced with Send In the Clowns.  I don't know whether this bodes well for Obama's second term, or poorly.

I think he'll do fine, particularly when the masses rise up and kick out the Teabaggers from the House.  And we shall LOL mightily.

After all, he's just waiting for his second term to jump all over the NRA.

[garbon]

Obama's failures, whatever they may be, were mostly due to a hostile congress.

A more realistic explanation might be that Obama lacked the political gravitas to keep Congress in-line.  After all, Obama had just as awful a time with the Dem majority as he has now.

[garbon]

Still, Dubya overcame genuine opposition to get his second term, whereas Obama has been faced with Send In the Clowns.  I don't know whether this bodes well for Obama's second term, or poorly.

I think he'll do fine, particularly when the masses rise up and kick out the Teabaggers from the House.  And we shall LOL mightily.

Why would that be the case? Seems like we might just see a re-kindling of an independent Dem congress. Not like they really feel any loyalty to him, especially with Nancy hinting at wanting Hil to run in 2016.

[Razgovory]

Democrats were more loyal to Bush back in 2002 then they were to Obama in 2009.