Do you miss him yet?

[Pangloss]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38786992/ns/politics-white_house/

 

In the last year, Obama’s overall “favorable” rating — a measure of personal regard for a president, past or present — has dropped from 62 percent to 52 percent, while Bush’s has risen from 35 percent to 45 percent as of mid-July. The two trends seem likely to continue.

 

Bush has been the beneficiary of weeks worth of back-handed compliments from the national punditocracy, which is sharply critical of the Tea Party’s (and other conservatives’ views) on immigration and the construction of an Islamic Community Center two blocks from the Ground Zero site in Manhattan.

 

Same thing happened to Clinton, as I recall. He was pretty beaten-up by Monicagate and the impeachment trial towards the end of his 2nd term, as well as a small recession if memory serves, so he was due for a rise. But does Bush rate one?

 

I don't know yet, it's too early for me, and I still disagree with him on too many subjects. It's suggested in this article that he would have opposed the Arizona immigration law and favored the "ground zero mosque", and I have the opposite views on those two issues.

 

What do you all think?

[Moontanman]

I don't miss him at all but the people who do must mirror the woman that was on teh news last night, her son was coming home from Iraq and the reporter asked her if she would be willing to send him all over again if she had the choice and she answered, "Yes! We have to fight for our freedom!" what a dumb ass

[Saryctos]

Seems like people aren't being told to hate Bush as much by the idiot box these days. Seems reasonable to believe that the reduction in anti-Bush venom in public discourse would have an inverse effect on his approval rating.

[jackson33]

I don't know yet, it's too early for me, and I still disagree with him on too many subjects. It's suggested in this article that he would have opposed the Arizona immigration law and favored the "ground zero mosque", and I have the opposite views on those two issues. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss, I have a hard time believing GWB, a former Governor of Texas, as President would have opposed AZ Bill 1070. Additionally, I find it highly unlikely he would have allowed or endorsed AG Gonzalez, in suing Arizona, the truly despicable action taken by the current DoJ...On the Mosque, he would have probably agreed in the Constitutional Rights of the organizers, but having been part of the entire 9-11 event (likely himself a target) and our reactions he, would never have said it was the right thing TO ALLOW. Here I'll add, then allow and pay the main organizer to travel abroad, for the US in the name of Islam.

 

Same thing happened to Clinton, as I recall. He was pretty beaten-up by Monicagate and the impeachment trial toward the end of his 2nd term, as well as a small recession if memory serves, so he was due for a rise. But does Bush rate one? [/Quote]

 

Both Clinton and GWB are likable men, while in office with a likable wife, former Governors and with a child or children and more important were not much different in early life than any of us, people relate to these things (opposed to policy) both before and after any President leaves office. Carter, probably the worst (for the Country) President since FDR and then FDR since Wilson, regained some popularity over time.

 

I don't know what all you think GWB, did wrong or if you understand what his policies meant to the economical heath of this country. I most certainly didn't appreciate his "Faith Based Initiative" program, "Medical Prescription Drug" program", or the "No Child left behind act" (based on Constitutional issues), but he somehow kept the GDP and National deficits in line. IMO if the Paulson/Bush TARP program had been followed up as was designed, there would have been NO Long Term recession, that's going on today. As for the War's or his approach to foreign affairs, I've never seen a problem and believe the historians will fight over these issues for generations.

 

One example (rise in public opinion), has to be Richard Nixon; At one time considered by many historians or the general public opinion was a disgrace to the office, rose again to acceptable standards and with his death, I felt nothing but admiration for his life long public service...

[DJBruce]

I really never viewed George Bush as a bad as a president, and generally his decisions matched my ideology. On the other hand I don't view President Obama as a bad president, but I do tend to disagree with most of his policy decisions. So do I miss George Bush, no I do not miss him. Would I prefer George Bush over President Obama right now; yes I would. But I think I would prefer most people who's beliefs were more in line with my own. So George Bush really is not that special.

 

As for the topic of George Bush's legacy. I would be willing to bet that as time goes on his image will slowly improve, and he will eventually be remembered as a decent to good president. As they say time heals all wounds, and in people tend to view past more rosey than they did at the time.

[mississippichem]

I miss good episodes of the Daily Show. Somehow it's just not as funny when a liberal comedian critiques a liberal president. Comedy is always funnier when it plays devils advocate.

 

Seriously, do I miss Bush? I miss those unemployment numbers, and I miss the previous level of capital gains tax. I believe the history books will be kind to GW within the next ten or so years. I wasn't a big fan of the Iraq war, but mainly because it stole vital resources from our more legitimate mission in Afganistan.

 

Bush wasn't great, but he really wasn't that bad. He was a liberal republican in my mind (see medicare part A-Z ) who got branded as a blood thirsty war hawk because of his Texas accent. If anything, I feel he wasn't conservative enough (especially to be so hated by so many liberals). His tax cuts were nice and did a lot to stir Wall Street but they really weren't deep enough to leave a lasting impact on the tax code or the peoples' expectations of the tax code.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's suggested in this article that he would have opposed the Arizona immigration law and favored the "ground zero mosque", and I have the opposite views on those two issues.

 

It's easy to would have made the most popular choices when you're not the one making them. (It's equally easy to would have made the least popular choices).

[Pangloss]

I have a hard time believing GWB, a former Governor of Texas, as President would have opposed AZ Bill 1070.

 

You're forgetting about the politics of the hispanic vote. Karl Rove and Jeb Bush are on record objecting to the law on a "don't fight the battle this way" basis, and also questioning its constitutionality. They're not GWB, of course, but they're arguably the next best thing to a statement from the man himself.

 

But their "opposition" might be likened to the way that President Obama "opposes" gay marriage, meaning that given the opportunity they wouldn't really fight it, and I agree that it's unlikely he would have had Gonzales sue the state over it. (Mr Skeptic's point above seems valid too.)

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003631-503544.html

 

 

I miss good episodes of the Daily Show. Somehow it's just not as funny when a liberal comedian critiques a liberal president. Comedy is always funnier when it plays devils advocate.

 

It's funny you mention that, because I've rediscovered the show and think it's the funniest thing on television (not that that's saying a lot!). I guess it all depends on your POV. I gritted my teeth a lot during his broadcasts over the Bush years.

[mississippichem]

It's funny you mention that, because I've rediscovered the show and think it's the funniest thing on television (not that that's saying a lot!). I guess it all depends on your POV. I gritted my teeth a lot during his broadcasts over the Bush years.

 

Yeah, even though I consider myself quite conservative, I must admit that John Stewart's liberal antics are hilarious when directed at conservatives. If you can't laugh at yourself, there's no reason to laugh at all

[Pangloss]

Oh definitely.

[jackson33]

You're forgetting about the politics of the hispanic vote. Karl Rove and Jeb Bush are on record objecting to the law on a "don't fight the battle this way" basis, and also questioning its constitutionality. They're not GWB, of course, but they're arguably the next best thing to a statement from the man himself. [/Quote]

 

First Pangloss, the Latino vote is primarily lower middle class and traditionally votes democratic, in the first place, this IMO is not based on Immigration, rather perceived benefits. When your talking 40+ percent of this demographic Nationally voting for Bush 2004, your talking land slide proportions and he has never wavered from some form of Immigration Reform (including border CONTROL), nor has Rove or JB, (I'm sure you know is married to a Latina).

 

Yes, Jeb, Karl, a host of legal scholars and little old me (1st thread, this forum, on the issue), questioned the Constitutionality of AB 1070. For me it was the enforcement (required by the State to all districts), to most others on impeding on Federal Responsibility (opposed to actual State Rights). I know Jeb Bush and believed Rove (an election strategist) and most those others agreed with Brewer's signing of the Bill (various reasons), which was later tweaked and revised to satisfy my own problems with the Bill.

 

But their "opposition" might be likened to the way that President Obama "opposes" gay marriage, meaning that given the opportunity they wouldn't really fight it, and I agree that it's unlikely he would have had Gonzales sue the state over it. (Mr Skeptic's point above seems valid too.) [/Quote]

 

This is actually the difference: Bush is a State Rights Advocate and Obama wishes a Federal Controlling Authority over everything. Bush or Gonzalez would not have fought the law, unless Constitutionally it went passed the Federal Laws, which it really never did or had IMO. Obama, IMO feels anything having to do with Authority over or for people, should first come from the Federal, or as of today then through the States from the Federal.

 

GWB, proposed an Amendment to the Constitution, defining Marriage and Obama will not play this card or 100 uncontrollable others (speaks both sides an issue) until after the 2012 Nominations, then elections. Even if he loses in 2012, he has and will continue to get like minded ideologues into the Federal Court System, he honestly feels will follow his policy, I seriously disagree.