What do you have against Bush? What did he do that warrants such dislike towards him? What did Clinton do right? Didn't he cheat on his wife? That doesn't seem very good,

Bush put us in debt. Clinton had us in a surplus. Bush got innocent americans/Iraqians killed in iraq for no reason. Bus allowed so many of quality american jobs go overseas into places like china where they make shitty goods. And who gives a shit if clinton cheated on his wife? doesnt make clinton a bad president. Conservatives just use that on clinton to make him look bad because clinton did such a great job (Yes I know clinton didn't have that many challenges but still, he was great). sorry if it's hard to reed i need to put in contacts

1. Afghanistan was indeed harboring some elements of Al-Quedia. However, did we have to occupy every square inch of the country to kill a few terrorists? When we invaded, we fought the Taliban more than Al-Quedia. We've been at war with the Taliban for ~8 years now in Afghanistan, not Al-Quedia. There would of been many easier ways to of dealt with Al-Quedia than a boots-on-the-ground invasion. I don't disagree that Saddam was a horrible person that needed to be removed, but was it worth hundreds of billions of dollars? Did Saddam have WMDs? Absolutely. That doesn't mean we should of spent so much to remove what he had (and by that logic, why haven't we attacked Iran or North Korea which have far more advanced programs?)

2. Here's a quote from Wikipedia as to what the bill has brought into law:

Now, we may think 'Oh, those are OK things. We're fighting islamic terrorists'. However, you got to understand the law applies to anyone deemed a threat to the government. What happens if the government decides it doesn't like a specific set of Americans - Christians, homosexuals, Hispanics, Jews, ect, and uses those tactics against them? It does erode our freedoms. Furthermore, the bill was supposed to sunset - have a limited span of time in which we needed the provisions. However, the bill was granted permanent extension. That doesn't sound too pro-freedom, does it?

3. Bush signed into law TARP just before he left office. It authorized over $700 billion USD to be given to banks to ensure they stayed solvent. I am not a big fan of increasing the federal deficit for a group of businesses that played fast and loose with their money. Its the same reason I am against the GM auto bailouts (which was under Obama). Keynesian economics have a very limited return for what they do, and Bush basically gave them near a trillion dollars that we had to borrow. That is a bad, bad, thing.

4. Yes, and vice-versa. Bush signed every congressional budget. The pen stopped with his presidency. If he felt the expansions were too much, he could of easily vetoed the legislation, and told them to pare down spending. He did not. In fact, I don't believe Bush ever vetoed any legislation in office....Not a good thing for the leader of our country.

5. Put it this way: In 2000 through 2006, the Republicans controlled the congress, senate, and presidency. That meant that if there was legislation they wanted to pass, it could of passed. They could of done a lot of things to help America, but utterly failed to do it. Instead, there were almost no reforms, no improvements in terms of legislation between 2000-2006. We didn't reduce spending, we didn't reform health care or social security. Instead, Bush worked with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind which was bad law, expanded Medicare, didn't fight for drilling in ANWAR (which helped lead to those wonderful $4/gal gas prices), and so on. Bush was in the presidency for 8 years, and there are only a few pieces of legislation - namely the partial birth abortion ban - that I can think of that were good. Is a good part of that due to pieces of excrement in congress and the senate? Absolutely. But Bush could of easily steered the ship to ensure smaller, more effective government. He did the opposite.

By comparison, look at what Obama has signed into law since he became president 2 years ago - DADT, Obamacare, the Stimulus bill, ect. Major, sweeping legislations.... Bush had 8 years, and had only TARP as a major bill he passed - and that was with the helps of Democrats, not Republicans.

I have to add that it seems he promoted an anti-partisan agenda as one of his foremost goals in office. This shooting has raised the profile of partisan vs non partisan politics so therefore supports one of his major but difficult positions. Im sure if he makes a few more good speeches he'll probably force many of the republican candidates and those holding polical power into less partisan positions to bring them to the table to deal more reasonably with him. In the end this shooting may have been the catalyst to turn him into not only a re-electable president, but an effective president as well.

Just thought I'd leave this hear for people who want to know what Obama has done so far

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

My disappointments in him are his inability to close gitmo down (but I can understand that) and the fact that he has not spoken a word about repealing the dastardly PATRIOT act.  But hey if he wins re-election he'll have four more years to work and he doesn't have to give as much of a damn about political positioning as he'll have reached his term limit.

We had debt in Clinton's presidency, didn't we? If I am not mistaken, he added debt to the deficit, just not as much as Bush. So, the president has the ability to declare war, without congress's consent? I did not know that. It was Bush's fault that China managed to get many American jobs? I just thought we could not compete with China considering they can manage to pay their workers less, but I guess I am mistaken, or am I? If he cheated on his wife, I will think a lot less of him. Also, didn't he commit purgury(lying in court if I am not mistaken)? Why did he lie? Also, didn't he leave Somalia in a mess after a quick occupation/invasion? Clinton killed many innocent somalians and americans? Didn't he also give nuclear material to North Korea, or am I mistaken? Does that seem like a wise idea, because it didn't seem to wise to me.

Im sure he added debt in the beginning, but we were on the track to make some serious money. Bush recommended to go to iraq, at the a lot of the congress was his buddies. So he could basically do whatever he wanted within reason. He could have controlled how many jobs went overseas by trying to enforce different tarifs and being more liberal and trying to get other countries to trade with us more. I dont know about the rest personally you could be right.

I did not think we were completely occupying all of the Kabul region, or close to the border of Pakistan, am I mistaken? What is our problem with the Taliban? Is there a reason we are fighting them? What other solutions were there? I guess human life has a price now? I would gladly spend all the money my country has to save a nation from tyranny and oppression. We should have invaded NK and iran. They constantly harrass us and our allies(Israel and SK) and we should not stand for it. Of course if there were peaceful ways to avoid such a conflict, I would encourage it, but there is no peaceful solution to those problems that I can think of, so it is good that I am no politician lol.

Overall during his presidency, he did add to the deficit though, or am I mistaken? Clinton took us to Somalia, and left abruptly throwing that country into chaos, if I am not mistaken. Why doesn't Obama do the things you speak of? Then we could stop the loss of more jobs, and perhaps court other former American factories to come back.

I'd base it soley on the speech... well and the Clintonian like compromise on taxes.

Unemployment dropped, but for every person who found a job, two people stopped looking.

Not exactly a good unemployment change as if things in the economy and unemployment DO come around eventually those people will enter the unemployment force again. 

Meaning unemployment will either rise again or unemployment rates will crawl when they inch up.   There is a reason EVERYONE in the Fed is trying to brace America for what they've called so far a "Jobless recovery."

To expect him to sail to reelection is a stretch.

I think he'll probably and up like W.

Win reelection by default due to a weak field of opposition.