How does President Obama compare to his predecessor, George W. Bush?

[windyman]

I know that I am going to get flamed for this but I actually think Bush did an alright job next to Obama. Obama continued Bush's policies in terms of NSA survailence and Guantanamo despite campaigning against them, added $7 trillion to the national debt (some of which was understandable due to the recession), and his foreign policy is currently in shambles as the arms he is providing to the Syrian rebels ends up in the hands of ISIS and being outplayed by Putin last year after the Syrian massacre and after Ukraine's goverment fell. He also left Iraq before properly training the government soldiers there which led to quick collapses in Mosul and Anbar province.

Bush made mistakes, but Obama is handling the aftermath of Bush's mistakes and possibly making them even worse especially on foriegn policy.

So how do you think Obama is faring compared to how Bush-Cheney did things?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well into his second term, President Obama would never have made some of the silly promises he did as candidate Obama. The duties of the office quickly gave him a dose of reality, from 'Gitmo to drone strikes, which he doubled down on in Pakistan. He also expended a huge amount of political capital on the Affordable Care Act, losing an opportunity for other initiatives when his party controlled all of Congress. I agree that he largely continued the policies of the Bush Administration with minor tweaks.

I would guess that responses to the question will fall mostly along ideological / party lines, but in the end President Obama will have a legacy of good and bad, just like President Bush. Right now he is floundering badly on foreign policy.

Good post...

[Moonlight Graham]

Obama has been so-so, if nothing drastic changes his presidency will be regarded as fairly competent but not fantastic. Bush was an absolute disaster, and is ranked near the bottom of US presidents in history, especially since the 20th century.

Btw, Obama did try to close the Gitmo camp and transfer the detainees to the US mainland and US courts, especially early in his presidency. However, Obama doesn't have ultimate authority on all things domestic, and Congress has blocked his attempts.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

I think the hallmark of Obama's administration is indecisiveness and slowness to action.

Consider for example the Ebola epidemic, where the Obama administration has still failed to shut down air travel from the affected African countries into the USA (due to considerations of political correctness?), even with the lives of thousands of Americans potentially at stake and close calls happening seemingly daily in the nation's hospitals. This kind of failure to act is simply inexcusable.

And of course Obama's dogged pursuit of national heroes like Snowden and continued escalation of measures to strip Americans of all their remaining privacy, which strongly demonstrates his authoritarian tendencies.

Or consider that under Obama, the US has ended up reliant on Russia for access to its own national laboratory, even as relations with Russia have deteriorated. Clearer leadership earlier on could have reduced the gap time here considerably.

Or consider the response to ISIS... a response months too late if one was to respond at all, lacking any real strategy or goal, certain to embroil the US in no less a quagmire than Bush did.

The simple conclusion is that while Obama may have been well-intentioned, there is no getting around the clear incompetence. Of course, that is not to say things would have been better under any of the potential Republican candidates.. in fact they could have easily been worse. And I'm no fan of their brand of theocratic statism. America really doesn't have any good choices when it comes to its politicians.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Bonam

[kimmy]

I think people have forgotten what a cluster things were by the end of the Bush presidency in 2008.

Despite the fear mongering over ISIS and Ebola, things aren't all that bad in comparison. Consider the state of the economy in 2008 when large businesses were going out of business, laying off people left and right, and being bailed out, and now consider it today where things are stable and the unemployment rate is now lower than Canada's unemployment rate.

To me, the biggest failures of the Obama tenure haven't been the stuff that conservative cranks are always howling about. To me, Obama's biggest failings have been in failing to get meaningful financial reforms implemented, having his signature healthcare endeavor watered down to the point that they might as well have not bothered, failing to hold Wall Street accountable for blatant fraud and misconduct, and doing the exact opposite of what he promised in regard to privacy rights and accountability in "national security" matters.

As the song says: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

-k

[Shady]

He's been a complete disaster, and doesn't seem to have a clue how to govern.

[Big Guy]

“ I think if my ranking of consequential presidents, at least in modern history, would probably be FDR, LBJ, Obama and then Reagan.”

This is the evaluation of Obama by Paul Krugman:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/13/krugman_obama_one_of_the_most_consequential_presidents_in_modern_history.html

“Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, Distinguished Scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center at the CUNY Graduate Center, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times. In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.”

So I read Paul Krugmans opinion and that of the anonymous posters on this board.

I wonder which ones I should consider to be more valid?

[On Guard for Thee]

Kimmy made some good points. Look at the horrorshow Bush left behind by watering down the lending laws which led to the sub prime mortgage fiasco that cost the taxpayers an arm and a leg to bail out the fat cat bankers when the RE bubble burst. Did some banker catch young George with a goat I wonder? Reports I read indicate the AHA program has been well received after the website problems got cleared up. And latest numbers show the US economy seems to be rebounding. And of course Obama has had to fight the cons. in congress every step of the way, especially those T party whacko's.They seem to think he created ISIS and Ebola. He inherited the "agenda from hell" and it hasn't ever eased up from what I see.

[On Guard for Thee]

He's been a complete disaster, and doesn't seem to have a clue how to govern.

We appreciate another of your learned comments.

[Smallc]

now consider it today where things are stable and the unemployment rate is now lower than Canada's unemployment rate.

-k

It's actually not. If they were measured the same way, the Canadian rate would be about the same or even lower:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/a-fast-way-to-lower-jobless-rate-use-us-metrics/article4104657/

[Moonlight Graham]

Consider for example the Ebola epidemic, where the Obama administration has still failed to shut down air travel from the affected African countries into the USA (due to considerations of political correctness?), even with the lives of thousands of Americans potentially at stake and close calls happening seemingly daily in the nation's hospitals. This kind of failure to act is simply inexcusable.

Travel bans from W. Africa aren't as simple or effective as you think:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/ebola-why-don-t-we-just-ban-flights-from-africa-1.2044668

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2014/10/13/ebola-travel/

America really doesn't have any good choices when it comes to its politicians.

Ralph Nader has run numerous times. People actually voted for both Bush and Gore in far higher numbers than Nader. Voters usually get the candidates and politicians they deserve. Americans deserved 8 years of Bush/Cheney because they 1) selected them in the Rep. primaries over all others, and 2) voted them into office, twice.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Shady]

It's actually not. If they were measured the same way, the Canadian rate would be about the same or even lower:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/a-fast-way-to-lower-jobless-rate-use-us-metrics/article4104657/

Good catch. It's kind of sad that for some in this forum, basic knowledge of things such as this, is still not grasped. Also add in the labour participation rate, which is at the lowest percentage since 1977. But for many of the pro-Obama types, facts don't matter.

[Bonam]

Travel bans from W. Africa aren't as simple or effective as you think:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/ebola-why-don-t-we-just-ban-flights-from-africa-1.2044668

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2014/10/13/ebola-travel/

The articles read like desperate justifications for a politically correct action rather than legitimate reasoning. A travel ban reduces the amount of people leaving those countries. Even if it is not 100% effective, it is still a considerable containment measure. Furthermore, the extent to which it is not effective is merely a matter of insufficient will in enforcement, and would be tightened sufficiently once people take the threat seriously. You can always take sufficiently strong measures if survival depends upon it, and the longer one waits before getting serious about containment, the stronger those measures have to be. Containment is a proven strategy in disease management and public health that's worked for a long time, that has suddenly been disregarded and thrown to the wind in this case for no conceivable reason besides political correctness. Do you think if we had an uncontrolled outbreak of a 70% deadly disease in Iceland that we would not have stopped all outbound flights (and sails) from Iceland? Also, "But it might harm the economy" is not a good enough excuse when you have an uncontrolled epidemic of a disease with 50-70% death rates.

As for the idea of it being selfish and choking off aid... no. Public flights are separate from specific flights by military personnel, aid personnel, medical personnel, etc, which could still take place under carefully controlled conditions with proper quarantine protocols if deemed appropriate.

Ralph Nader has run numerous times. People actually voted for both Bush and Gore in far higher numbers than Nader. Voters usually get the candidates and politicians they deserve. Americans deserved 8 years of Bush/Cheney because they 1) selected them in the Rep. primaries over all others, and 2) voted them into office, twice.

This is true to some extent, but assumes that democratic systems perfectly reflect the will of the people. There are various problems with that assumption, including lack of proper information or prevalence of misinformation, lack of proper access to voting, mathematical infidelity in the way the voting system assigns representation based on votes cast, etc etc. The word "deserve" also implies some sense of culpability, as in, implying that collective punishment would be acceptable against the people of a democratic country (an argument actually made by some other posters on these forums).

[On Guard for Thee]

Good catch. It's kind of sad that for some in this forum, basic knowledge of things such as this, is still not grasped. Also add in the labour participation rate, which is at the lowest percentage since 1977. But for many of the pro-Obama types, facts don't matter.

I suggest looking at the current statistics. Otherwise ya just look silly.

[Smallc]

I suggest looking at the current statistics. Otherwise ya just look silly.

Sure, why not.

This is from 1 year ago, but it still holds true today:

https://businessincanada.com/2013/11/08/canada-united-states-unemployment-rate-2013-2014/

[Moonlight Graham]

Re: Ebola, yes it would make sense to ban some flights but not for aid/health workers etc.

This is true to some extent, but assumes that democratic systems perfectly reflect the will of the people. There are various problems with that assumption, including lack of proper information or prevalence of misinformation, lack of proper access to voting, mathematical infidelity in the way the voting system assigns representation based on votes cast, etc etc. The word "deserve" also implies some sense of culpability, as in, implying that collective punishment would be acceptable against the people of a democratic country (an argument actually made by some other posters on these forums).

Well, voters, and US voters, usually deserve the candidates they get because they simply don't demand a better standard. If people didn't vote for politicians who consistently lied, who implemented certain domestic and foreign policies etc., then politicians wouldn't do those things. Above all other interests, politicians fear for their jobs and most will do almost anything to keep them, most notably pandering to whatever the voters demand. No matter how effed up our politics seems, that is the wonderful thing about democracies. Voters as a group ultimately have the power to change absolutely anything about their systems/policies if they become important enough election issues for them.

[Bonam]

Except that Western democracy is structurally designed to select people with the following attributes:

- power hungry (why else go through all the trouble, give up your privacy, etc)

- dishonest (otherwise you'll say something unpopular and not move up the ladder)

This is a fundamental feature of the system. Voters can never vote for any candidate that is not power hungry and dishonest.

Contrary to what is constantly asserted, representative democracy is not the perfect system. It is better than any alternative that has been widely tried, sure, but it is far from perfect.

[On Guard for Thee]

Except that Western democracy is structurally designed to select people with the following attributes:

- power hungry (why else go through all the trouble, give up your privacy, etc)

- dishonest (otherwise you'll say something unpopular and not move up the ladder)

This is a fundamental feature of the system. Voters can never vote for any candidate that is not power hungry and dishonest.

Contrary to what is constantly asserted, representative democracy is not the perfect system. It is better than any alternative that has been widely tried, sure, but it is far from perfect.

Notwithstanding your "one size fit's all" assumptions, how do you expect to be able to vote for representatives if nobody want's the job?

[Bonam]

Notwithstanding your "one size fit's all" assumptions, how do you expect to be able to vote for representatives if nobody want's the job?

A better system has eluded political theorists for centuries, so I'm not gonna provide you with one here. But that does not mean the current system is perfect, or even anywhere close to perfect. I'm not convinced that any version of representative democracy is the best system, so I don't know if the best system would necessarily involve voting for representatives at all.

[On Guard for Thee]

There is the old theory of a benevolent dictator, which could, and has, worked from time to time. Don't know if I'd trust it for the long term.

[Bonam]

There is the old theory of a benevolent dictator, which could, and has, worked from time to time. Don't know if I'd trust it for the long term.

There are many many possibilities:

- direct democracy implemented through secure online communication

- representative democracy where the representatives are selected in some sort of random or semi-random process

- state jurisdictions defined based on ideological or economic rather than geographical proximity

- a corporate apparatus as state - where all citizens are both employees and shareholders

- a "benevolent dictator" that is actually a computer algorithm that is designed to optimize life for the citizens, its programming changeable subject to some supermajority vote

Just a few random examples, all of which I'm sure have plenty of issues one could object about it. One could I'm sure make a list thousands long. Point is that far from every possible political system has been tried, and to claim that our current models of parliamentary or presidential representative democracies are the end-all be-all is premature.

[bush_cheney2004]

Job approval ratings for Presidents Bush & Obama as reported by RealClearPolitics....Obama has never come close to Bush's record high ratings after 9/11/2001:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_bush_first_term_job_approval.html

[BubberMiley]

Yes, all you have to do is sit and read My Pet Goat while the country is attacked and your approval ratings will go through the roof.

[kimmy]

Job approval ratings for Presidents Bush & Obama as reported by RealClearPolitics....Obama has never come close to Bush's record high ratings after 9/11/2001:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_bush_first_term_job_approval.html

Obama has also never come close to Bush's 22% approval rating or 73% disapproval that he'd amassed by the end of his term.

-k

[Argus]

Bush screwed up the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, then ended things up with a massive financial catastrophe which ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. He was a disaster as president.

Obama? He was never ready to be president in the first place. He's been a drone, accomplishing little or nothing. His foreign policy has been disastrous. His domestic policy - does he have one - has been largely absent. Whatever inspiration he had faded after he walked into the Oval Office. He's shown little interest in the deal-making which is a necessity for presidents, and never did get his priorities right.

If it weren't for his skin color he would be ignored by history. One of those place-marker presidents nobody remembers.