Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
G.W. is the best President at being a war monger. I can hardly think of one thing he did I liked. I payed attention to politics more during that time because every thing he did I disagreed with and his veiws on thinking god worked through him sickend me. Romney seems almost as scary.
|
Nah. As Govonor Romney was more liberal then Obama is as president.
|
Yes but unless he rapidly backpedals on the positions he took in the Republican "race to be the most insane rightwing fundamentalist nutbug" primary, he'll be a far more conservative president.
|
Remember Rath, this is American politics.
Look at all the rapid backpedalling Obama did from his caopaign promises.
I mean, Bush wasn't better then Obama, but reverse their presidencies and I think you'd find not much changed.
|
Obama hasn't actually backpedaled as much as you make out - a lot of the promises he broke were not out of backpedaling but simply because congress didn't want to pass it. For Romney to become more liberal than Obama would require massive massive shifts.
In the general line of the Bush/Obama presidency (and especially on handling the economic disaster) - they're pretty similar. However in terms of the defining events of their presidencies they're quite different.
Iraq was a bit more disasterous than Libya for example, and Obama hasn't handled a domestic disaster as badly as Bush cocked up Katrina. In the end those will be some of the major things Bush will be remembered for.
|
That's not true at all... Obama did most of his backpedalling in the first two years of his presidency when he had a democratic majority. Ever since the Republican party took over congress he's moved back towards the "left" as he knew none of those policies would pass. If you look at legislative history you'll note that a few hot button issues are only pushed when they know they won't pass.
Gay rights is one of those.
The healthcare law I'd bet would be another. If the Republicans actually thought they could pass a repeal of healthcare, I doubt they would, because it's too much of a political risk.
As for their handling of things... Iraq was more disasterous then Libya, but those were two very different wars. There wasn't a strong unified arm resistance to support in Iraq.
While Bush's handling of Katrina... Obama's handling of the BP oil spill wasn't exactly great either. Although really neither of those are either of their faults.
In general the problem is that FEMA is a giant mess of an orginzation that ends up getting in local groups way in it's need to overly control everything.
Well that and stupid enviromental laws prevented quicker cleanup of the BP oil because it banned the use of most cleaning boats because the cleaning boats would be counted as "polluting" the water by putting in water because the water that would run through it's ships wouldn't be "clean enough". (You know, despite the fact that it'd be cleaner.)
|
His major gay rights promise was Don't Ask Don't Tell - he pushed that through. Some of his promises he couldn't even get through a democratic congress (Freedom of Choice Act anyone?) and some of his promises were never going to happen (He was never going to get somewhere to put Guantanamo prisoners).
The fact that there was no strong unified front in Iraq was part of what was wrong with the war. Libya was an intervention because a budding revolution was about to be crushed and its supporters almost certainly massacred, Iraq didn't have any real national emergency (or any real threat internationally). It was a war for the sake of a war - though I'll admit that if democracy sticks it will have had a net positive outcome.
As for BP - didn't know there had been such criticism of Obama for it. Katrina was a mess though - although you're right that it's probably not fair to lay it all at George's feet.
