GWB turns out was a pretty good President

[rightwinger]

I can't believe a thread like this was started. I also can't believe this thread is still alive!

He starts the same Bush was great thread every month

Same nonsense

Then ignore it
I do not believe I have ever began a post stating such as this
I have defended GWB only because I believe in justice and the truth

Right winger you have been lied too
like so many and you now as many who support Obama do not know why

You actually do a great service reminding everyone about how bad republican leadership really was

Never again!

 

[elvis]

He starts the same Bush was great thread every month

Same nonsense

Then ignore it
I do not believe I have ever began a post stating such as this
I have defended GWB only because I believe in justice and the truth

Right winger you have been lied too
like so many and you now as many who support Obama do not know why

You actually do a great service reminding everyone about how bad republican leadership really was

Never again!

He's a hack troll just like you.

 

[rightwinger]

Then ignore it
I do not believe I have ever began a post stating such as this
I have defended GWB only because I believe in justice and the truth

Right winger you have been lied too
like so many and you now as many who support Obama do not know why

You actually do a great service reminding everyone about how bad republican leadership really was

Never again!

He's a hack troll just like you.

Actually, JRKs posts show more thought than yours

But you keep trying......we understand you do your best

 

[Meathead]

The OP's point is valid. Obama is making Bush look much better. Hell, he makes Carter seem like less of a failure even allowing for Carter's inability to get re-elected.

 

[Dubya]

The OP's point is valid. Obama is making Bush look much better. Hell, he makes Carter seem like less of a failure even allowing for Carter's inability to get re-elected.

The President doesn't make the laws in this country and Obama had less than six months with 60 votes in the Senate with Republicans obstructing the government for the rest of the time. That has never happened before in the history of America.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Meathead]

The OP's point is valid. Obama is making Bush look much better. Hell, he makes Carter seem like less of a failure even allowing for Carter's inability to get re-elected.

The President doesn't make the laws in this country and Obama had less than six months with 60 votes in the Senate with Republicans obstructing the government for the rest of the time. That has never happened before in the history of America.

Obama had a mandate, control of both House and Senate for two years and a Senate supermajority for most of that. His inability to capitalize on that and essentially squander a historical opportunity illustrates a disciplined opposition, but even more so marginal leadership skills. Now, as a lame duck without a mandate nor control of the House, Obama's second term bodes catastrophic. He might be able to turn it around, but has yet to show the skills that made Reagan and Clinton successful presidents.

 

[Dubya]

The OP's point is valid. Obama is making Bush look much better. Hell, he makes Carter seem like less of a failure even allowing for Carter's inability to get re-elected.

The President doesn't make the laws in this country and Obama had less than six months with 60 votes in the Senate with Republicans obstructing the government for the rest of the time. That has never happened before in the history of America.

Obama had a mandate, control of both House and Senate for two years and a Senate supermajority for most of that. His inability to capitalize on that and essentially squander a historical opportunity illustrates a disciplined opposition, but even more so marginal leadership skills. Now, as a lame duck without a mandate nor control of the House, Obama's second term bodes catastrophic. He might be able to turn it around, but has yet to show the skills that made Reagan and Clinton successful presidents.

The Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate for less than 6 months and the Republicans obstructed the government. The Congress makes the laws.

Look it the hell up and stop lying!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Senate

 

[Meathead]

Obama's inability to capitalize on a mandate and a congressional landslide in the 2008 election is not lie, it is a fact. If he could do squat under those circumstances what chance does he have now?

The point is that even Bush was able to plow ahead under less favorable circumstances thus illustrating Obama as a rank political amateur. The US president is invested with powers that far exceed his counterparts in other democracies, yet Obama's apologists are reduced to whining about the obstruction of Republican minorities in congress for his failures in his first to years.

 

[Lakhota]

Obama's inability to capitalize on a mandate and a congressional landslide in the 2008 election is not lie, it is a fact. If he could do squat under those circumstances what chance does he have now?

The point is that even Bush was able to plow ahead under less favorable circumstances thus illustrating Obama as a rank political amateur. The US president is invested with powers that far exceed his counterparts in other democracies, yet Obama's apologists are reduced to whining about the obstruction of Republican minorities in congress for his failures in his first to years.

The Democrats were Bush's loyal opposition. Nothing like Obama has faced from the obstructionist party of NO during his first term.

Come on 2014 so the House can become sane once again.

 

[freedombecki]

And like Reagan....he managed to cut tax rates for his rich buds while watching the national debt double and doing nothing about it.

And unlike President Obama.... President Bush managed to keep Americans employed. President Obama has increased only the percentage of people who have benefitless part-time employment. It's a dis-grace.

LMAO!! Why do you think they call this the great recession? Bush, Bernanke and Paulson handed the largest banks in the world $870 billion and when Bush left office jobs were bleeding off at 750,000 a month. About Obama's unemployment...I'd be ashamed to get my ass kicked by someone who presided over four years of that if I were you Republicans:

OBAMA.......332
numbnuts.............206

<bzzt!> Bush had a war to win. The Libbie Congress had their goal set on removing all the money in the U.S. Treasury for their families and High Maintenance supporters requiring oh, a billion here and a billion there.

Thanks for driving the armored car delivering "excesses" of poor taxpayers' and earners' salaries to Libbie businesses already marked for bankruptcy as soon as they made off with America's money, sucker. But not to worry. Congress retires at full salary, freebies, and protections fully covered to preserve their wealth, and you don't.

You are just making sure things go well for Nancy Pelosi's spoiled rotten nieces, nephews, brother-in-laws, shirt-sleeve cousins, 1%er silent partners, et al. Man have you ever made the undeserving the uppity ups in jet-setting. You'll always be a bag-carrier for them. They'll always think of you as union goons, though. Enter through the back door with the bags, please.

It's a pathos issue. *sigh*

 

[Meathead]

Obama's inability to capitalize on a mandate and a congressional landslide in the 2008 election is not lie, it is a fact. If he could do squat under those circumstances what chance does he have now?

The point is that even Bush was able to plow ahead under less favorable circumstances thus illustrating Obama as a rank political amateur. The US president is invested with powers that far exceed his counterparts in other democracies, yet Obama's apologists are reduced to whining about the obstruction of Republican minorities in congress for his failures in his first to years.

The Democrats were Bush's loyal opposition. Nothing like Obama has faced from the obstructionist party of NO during his first term.

Come on 2014 so the House can become sane once again.

The Democrats were not a "loyal" opposition to Bush. Bush was simply able to get them to agree in their own self interest. That is what skilled politicians do. Obama thought he could rule by decree in 2009 and got bitch-slapped for his assumption. If he has any competence as a politician he will have learned and conduct himself accordingly. There is precious little to indicate any such thing.

 

[Dubya]

Obama's inability to capitalize on a mandate and a congressional landslide in the 2008 election is not lie, it is a fact. If he could do squat under those circumstances what chance does he have now?

The point is that even Bush was able to plow ahead under less favorable circumstances thus illustrating Obama as a rank political amateur. The US president is invested with powers that far exceed his counterparts in other democracies, yet Obama's apologists are reduced to whining about the obstruction of Republican minorities in congress for his failures in his first to years.

The Democrats were Bush's loyal opposition. Nothing like Obama has faced from the obstructionist party of NO during his first term.

Come on 2014 so the House can become sane once again.

The Democrats were not a "loyal" opposition to Bush. Bush was simply able to get them to agree in their own self interest. That is what skilled politicians do. Obama thought he could rule by decree in 2009 and got bitch-slapped for his assumption. If he has any competence as a politician he will have learned and conduct himself accordingly. There is precious little to indicate any such thing.

In Bush's first six years, the Republicans controlled the House and Senate. When the economy went south in his final two, it was the Democrats who supported Bush plans to fix things and his own party didn't support him.

The anti-government nutcases are in control of the Republicans, though they would gladly use government to give more to the rich. That's about the only thing they think government is good for.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Why in the world do people even try this?

Two horrific, wasteful costly wars and a massive economic collapse. That's what this guy left behind, and no one can deny that.

The Bush administration happened. There's nothing we can do about that but repair the damage, whether it was "his fault" or not. But this spin is madness. What's the point? Are you folks this desperate to find political advantage?

Bizarre.

.

 

[Meathead]

I think desperation is blaming Bush for Obama's dismal record. When you find yourself doing not only that, but making further excuses for Obama's legislative shortcomings, it invariably makes Bush look more accomplished in contrast. Obama's first four years were Bush's and the
Republicans' fault according to his apologists. At what point do does the onus become Obama's, if ever?

 

[Dubya]

I think desperation is blaming Bush for Obama's dismal record. When you find yourself doing not only that, but making further excuses for Obama's legislative shortcomings, it invariably makes Bush look more accomplished in contrast. Obama's first four years were Bush's and the
Republicans' fault according to his apologists. At what point do does the onus become Obama's, if ever?

Desperation is lying about the supermajority.

 

[Mac1958]

I think desperation is blaming Bush for Obama's dismal record. When you find yourself doing not only that, but making further excuses for Obama's legislative shortcomings, it invariably makes Bush look more accomplished in contrast. Obama's first four years were Bush's and the
Republicans' fault according to his apologists. At what point do does the onus become Obama's, if ever?

To answer your question directly, I really don't know.

On one hand, he inherited an abject disaster, a combination of disasters. Bad enough that there will never be any way of knowing what he would (or wouldn't) have accomplished in more normal times. Ever. I don't see how any honest, reasonable person can deny that. On the other hand, it's more than fair to expect gradual improvement.

But while Obama has his apologists, so does Bush, and the whole exercise is nothing more than transparent partisan politics. Let the Obama apologists spin his years when he's gone. But trying to defend what Bush left behind, yikes...

.

 

[Meathead]

I think desperation is blaming Bush for Obama's dismal record. When you find yourself doing not only that, but making further excuses for Obama's legislative shortcomings, it invariably makes Bush look more accomplished in contrast. Obama's first four years were Bush's and the
Republicans' fault according to his apologists. At what point do does the onus become Obama's, if ever?

Desperation is lying about the supermajority.

Did Obama have a senate supermajority or not? Even when he didn't, he should have been able to pass significant legislation with almost 60 in the senate and control of the house. Flailing for excuses in your role as an apologist for his failure to do so makes Bush look far more accomplished especially since he was able to do so with less control in either house. The point is simple.

 

[G.T.]

I think desperation is blaming Bush for Obama's dismal record. When you find yourself doing not only that, but making further excuses for Obama's legislative shortcomings, it invariably makes Bush look more accomplished in contrast. Obama's first four years were Bush's and the
Republicans' fault according to his apologists. At what point do does the onus become Obama's, if ever?

Desperation is lying about the supermajority.

Did Obama have a senate supermajority or not? Even when he didn't, he should have been able to pass significant legislation with almost 60 in the senate and control of the house. Flailing for excuses in your role as an apologist for his failure to do so makes Bush look far more accomplished especially since he was able to do so with less control in either house. The point is simple.

He did not.

They had it by 1, and only for a few months, and one of the "one" that they had it by was Joe Lieberman - the guy who endorsed JOHN MCCAIN for the Election and even attended the R convention.

Also - the economy is back to bigger than pre recession levels right now. The reason unemployment remains pretty bad is technology and also that the recession caused many lax companies to focus harder on efficiency, to produce more with less.

I don't think it's a Government problem. Their problem is spending and the debt.

 

[Meathead]

Desperation is lying about the supermajority.

Did Obama have a senate supermajority or not? Even when he didn't, he should have been able to pass significant legislation with almost 60 in the senate and control of the house. Flailing for excuses in your role as an apologist for his failure to do so makes Bush look far more accomplished especially since he was able to do so with less control in either house. The point is simple.

He did not.

They had it by 1, and only for a few months, and one of the "one" that they had it by was Joe Lieberman - the guy who endorsed JOHN MCCAIN for the Election and even attended the R convention.

Also - the economy is back to bigger than pre recession levels right now. The reason unemployment remains pretty bad is technology and also that the recession caused many lax companies to focus harder on efficiency, to produce more with less.

[I]I don't think it's a Government problem. Their problem is spending and the debt.[/I]

They did in fact have a supermajority for some time. It is exactly the point that Obama was unable to consolidate it. It was not until Scott Brown was sworn in that the Republicans had 41 senate seats, enough for cloture.

Your last sentence which I have bolded is indeed ponderous.