2009.01.06
Bush vs. Clinton
History ultimately will decide how well President Bush performed and how he stands compared to his predecessor, but the Pew Research Center didn't want to wait. It assembled a host of comparative statistics for 2000 and 2008. It doesn't look good for Bush.
OK, so that's all public opinion. Surely statistically the nation is doing better. Nope.
Check out the full Pew findings for even more revealing comparative data.
RSS feed 
Yeah but Clinton was impeached.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Comment by Henry — January 6, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
ill take an impeached president who cheated on his wife, over an unimpeached one who cheated on his country.
Comment by scott — January 6, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
And no one but the Republicans who ran their party in the ground cared.
BWAAAAAA HAHAAAAAAA
Comment by Blue John — January 6, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
Doubled the national debt in eight years, and they call themselves "conservatives"???
How do you DOUBLE the national debt in eight short years???
Comment by Ronald — January 7, 2009 @ 12:36 am
I was looking for the "pardon" comparison.
Anyways, at least Clinton likes bush.
Comment by Jack — January 7, 2009 @ 7:06 am
"How do you DOUBLE the national debt in eight short years???"
Ask Congress. They spend the money.
Comment by Henry — January 7, 2009 @ 7:47 am
Who was in charge of Congress most that time, Henry?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — January 7, 2009 @ 8:22 am
We should clarify one thing about Congress. The Republicans who controlled Congress for the first 6 years should not be considered as conservatives. There was nothing conservative about them while Bush was in office. When Clinton was in office, they called themselves conservative and acted like it. But something magical happened to that Congress. Between December 12, 2000 when the Supreme Court ended the Florida debacle and January 20, 2001 when Bush took office, the conservative Republicans vanished and they became big spenders like typical Democrats. Even though I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat for that matter, that ideological change is what has killed the RNC. They completely abandoned all fiscal principle and have subsequently lost seats in every election since. Why elect a Republican who spends big when a Democrat does the same thing? Main difference: the Democrats are known for it and we expect it. Republicans typically run as small government politicians, but they have turned their back on that ideal for nearly a decade now.
Comment by Other John — January 7, 2009 @ 8:52 am
As an added point, this really highlights the problems of having both houses of Congress and the White House under the control of the same party. There are few checks and balances on what gets done when there is one-party control, so the party in power pretty much does whatever it wants, usually to the detriment of the country and the citizens. Our best times in recent history have been when there has been a split of Congress and the White House between the two parties because it forces cooperation and makes the parties work together on issues both sides can agree upon. I hope the Democrats watched the Republicans implode under Bush and that they learn from it. If they go hog wild like the RNC did the first 6 years under Bush...they'll likely find themselves right back out of power within a few election cycles.
Comment by Other John — January 7, 2009 @ 8:57 am
The Republicans are in the crapper precisely because they have become almost indistinguishable from Democrats, fiscally. That includes Bush and his fiscal legacy.
Comment by james — January 7, 2009 @ 9:29 am
OJ
The Republicans did not have complete control. There were a few Republicans in the Senate that defected quite a bit. The Senate was 50-50 for a while when one of the Republicans(Lincoln Chaffee) went independent. The hold on the Senate was shakey at best. But the country was investing heavily in defense during Bush's term and that is very hard on deficits. If the Democrats want to cut the deficit, military spending is where they will do it.
Obama doesn't have this problem. The Democrats have a firm lock on both the House and the Senate. They can brush aside the Republicans.
Comment by Henry — January 7, 2009 @ 9:58 am
Democrats only have 59 votes in the Senate (58 until Coleman quits trying to overturn the recount; 57 until the Burris issue is resolved; 56 until New York figures out who to replace Hillary with). They need 60 votes to end a filibuster. Republicans cannot be brushed aside.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — January 7, 2009 @ 10:01 am
That's true Dan. But you assuming 100% solidarity by the Republicans. I seriously doubt that is going to happen, especially on a filibuster. I personally don't think the Democrats are going to do anything major for a few years. Unlike my conservative friends, I have high hopes for the next several years.
Read this by Harry Reid "I do not work for Obama"
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/i-dont-work-for-obama-2009-01-06.html
and this:
The AP is reporting that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Rules Committee, says the Senate should seat former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/blogs/fortyfourthestate/
Trouble in paradise is always fun
Comment by Henry — January 7, 2009 @ 10:20 am
This "analysis" couldn't be more pathetic and misleading. It is precisely the statistics in the second table, which have little or nothing to do with who is currently President, that are driving the satisfaction numbers in the first table. As Bush said during an interview with Fox News, people are expressing their dissatisfaction with the economy, and Bush himself does not approve of the current economic performance.
A closer look shows that the Democrat-led Congress has a much lower satisfaction rating than the President. In particular, Pelosi and Reid are huge disappointments according to the polls. Wonder why we never hear about this in media land?
Look at the line, "Think we will be better off 4 yrs from now". Many might think this is asking what the expected efficacy of Obama will be, but in fact, many are just thinking that the economy will go through its business cycle and recover by then without regard to president. Thus, I think the economy will improve by then through its own process, but I expect Obama and the Democrat Congress to only be a constraint, through taxation and redistribution, to the forces that make our economy robust.
Clinton is a prime example of riding a rising economic wave, in fact a technology investment bubble, to popularity only to have it burst when Bush took office in 2000. I still haven't recovered from the impact of wealth destruction resulting from the equity bubble of the 1990s.
Bush was only made stronger by a hostile media, as currently demonstrated by the RT here, among those of us who value someone who identified the global threat of Islamic terrorism (NYC, Mumbai, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Riyad, Somolia, China, etc.) and has kept America safe since 9/11, and this costs money. Yeah, the senior drug benefit was a misguided entitlement, but Bush has kicked some liberal/terrorist tail in other areas. God bless Bush - many of us will miss him.
Comment by Jim — January 7, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Obama isn't even in office and the deficit is already falling
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090107/bs_nm/us_usa_budget_8
The U.S. budget deficit will swell to a record $1.186 trillion in fiscal 2009 as the global recession saps the economy, congressional forecasters said on Wednesday, presenting a daunting challenge to President-elect Barack Obama who has said tough choices will be necessary.
The Congressional Budget Office also forecast the deficit will likely fall to $703 billion in the 2010 fiscal year which begins October 1, 2009, as the U.S. recession begins to ease in the second half of this year.
Comment by Henry — January 7, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Jim...
I'm glad you'll miss W because I for one won't. I've voted Republican over the years having voted for RR but W has got to have been the worst leader the free world has ever encountered.
We talk about fighting for liberties of the downtrodden in foreign lands and yet we can't give liberties to many of our own here in this country. He has been a prime example of the hypocracy of a person.
He'll have a legacy all right...but not one that many would like to have hanging around their necks.
Comment by Will — January 7, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
"yet we can't give liberties to many of our own here in this country."
Did Clinton give those liberties to them?
Comment by Henry — January 7, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Henry...
At least Clinton tried. W didn't.
Comment by Will — January 7, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
You mean he was tried. Clinton didn't do a thing. I doubt Obama will either.
Comment by Henry — January 7, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
"I'm glad you'll miss W because I for one won't."
Huhhhh?
"He has been a prime example of the hypocracy of a person."
Whaaaat?
Those are stinging rebukes Will.
"yet we can't give liberties to many of our own here in this country."
You mean like the right to own firearms for defense of home? Or maybe the right to decide whether or not to buy health insurance? Or maybe the right to pursue your own lives rather than join or be spied upon by a national civilian security force? Can you say KGB? Or how about crade-to-grave government programs that forcibly tell you what to do at each stage of your and your families lives? How about oppressive taxes to fund increasing entitlements?
I believe it was John Adams who said, "once liberty is lost it is gone forever".
Comment by Jim — January 8, 2009 @ 9:58 am
Adding to the Adams quote...at least until another revolutionary war once the people are fed up with not having any remaining liberties. The founders were smart about the second amendment. A disarmed populace is one that cannot rise up against the ruling class...aka government.
Comment by Other John — January 8, 2009 @ 10:46 am
What really fascinates me about this post is that it wasn't long ago that the RT called for an end to partisan fighting and to begin to unify around Obama. I know, that's the sappiest most politically self-serving thing we've heard. But then you get this post, which clearly doesn't support that request. This blog is just hysterical.
On a separate note, 5 former Presidents got together to support Obama during these trying times. Current President Bush stated, "All of us who have served in this office understand that the office transcends the individual. And we wish you all the very best. And so does the country." Looks like Bush has class and humility and puts the country first, but the angry left, here the RT, doesn't.
Comment by Jim — January 8, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
Jim...
John Adams was completely correct. Can we say warrantless wiretaps? Can you say skewed tax laws for only "married" individuals? Can you say banned adoptions?
Freedom to live an unobstructed and productive life...so long as you live it within these defined parameters. That's liberty alright.
I believe it was Obama that asked for the luncheon...not W. W just happened to be able to host it and I would have been very surprised had he said anything but what he did. To have done anything less would have been suicidal.
Comment by Will — January 8, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
"Can we say warrantless wiretaps? Can you say skewed tax laws for only "married" individuals? Can you say banned adoptions?" - Will
Hey, didn't Obama end up supporting wiretaps?
Skewed tax laws? You are right on the married part. And it also subsidizes having children, which I think is wrong too. But our current system also steals from one population to hand out to other in exchange for votes?
I think Obama changed his tax refund policy to exclude non-working individuals ONLY after some pressure.
Suicidal?
Comment by Jim — January 9, 2009 @ 1:43 pm