I am trying to think of any place that GW Bush was better than the current Obama administration (I do this because some will say Obama is "the worst president ever").  I have to look at the body of work, and it is biased that I apply 8 years to 3+ for Obama, but that is what I have to work with.  I will have to ask though, based on track record to track record, In what way was the prior administration of GW Bush better than Obama?  I look at the following areas an see no place. Maybe you can point out something else:

* The "War on Terror":  9/11 happened.  Obama didn't have anything similar.  Obama kills Osama Bin Laden, GW Bush failed to.

* Invasions of countries: GW Bush invaded two, and both of which had occupations for years, one of which goes down under the ranks of Vietnam.  Obama was involved with the invasion of Libya, which ended fairly quickly and U.S isn't in there.

* The Federal Deficit: Both of them have piled on debt, and raised the debt ceiling multiple times.  The credit rating took a hit under Obama, due to failure to raise the credit ceiling due to political wrangling.  This MAY be one you give to GW Bush, regarding the credit rating.  And you then compare the spending side of things and growth of spending, you can see under Obama, government spending grew less than under GW Bush: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

* Job creation: Need to look at private sector job creation as a true measure here.  It is easier to just spend tax dollars and employ people, so look at private sector job creation.  Private sector job creation flatlined starting around 2001, and hasn't gotten better at all.  Ok, maybe some under Obama.  Both of them aren't really good in this area.

* Economic downturns: If one wanted to say Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, thus it isn't his fault, then the current economic mess would belong to GW Bush at this point.  If not then, GW Bush would have been responsible for two economic downturns, and Obama none, because the economic downturn started prior to Obama taking over.

* Scandals: Obama has Solyndra and Fast and Furious.  With Bush you have the misappropriation of funds by Hallaburton, Abu Ghriab, Plamegate.  Want to go "BP Oil spil and Obama"?  That would then mean Katrina with GW Bush.

* Threat to Civil Liberties: You have the language in the NDAA.  With the Bush administration, it was the Patriot Act.

* Government involvement in healthcare as a threat to the budget: Can scream about Obamacare, but GW Bush gave America the prescription pill plan, authored with Ted Kennedy.

They are both just puppets who dance for wall street.

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.

Bush is smarter. All the blames gone to Cheney for the ebils they've done together.

How about the fact Obama has already spent more money than any president in history......that would be a good start

You are comparing things that can't be compared (like Katrina and BP Oil?), but I'm not convinced you are not trolling. One could easily point out declaring an unnecessary war by accusing a country of hiding 'weapons of mass destruction' that were sold by his Daddy's administration, by the vary same guy who was serving as the Secretary of Deference (Donald Rumsfeld) and used against our then enemy in their own war (with Iran.)

Just lost at the cost of the war, first in human lives, then add economic cost (which was kept out of the Federal Budget to make his numbers look better), then throw in the damage to Iraq, human rights violations, etc.

Or, one could hate him for blocking medical research with the stem cell ban? My friend with diabetes (type 1) would love a new pancreas they are growing with stem cells overseas. He may not get completely off insulin, but he would have less of a chance of going blind.

Still, he was such a bad president (including Cheney) that I think you must be trolling, at least a little bit.

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.