He promised change but so far, it is seeming nothing more than a continuation of the Bush era. He and Bush imo are the two worst presidents in modern and possibly all of history (order can go either way, does not matter at all). Can't really promise "change" anymore, maybe a prettier version of "baby, give me another chance" could work. Didn't deliver on most of his promises and the ones he did deliver were some compromise with the outcome being nowhere near what was promised exactly. Not to mention the fact that he is in the pocket of every major corporation and interest group. He will have more money than whomever wins the Republican nominee who will be a weak candidate (look at this field, it is worse than 2008 and 2008 was pretty terrible). Those two factors should be enough to win but my question is how will he dupe the people (myself included) this time? http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/05/czar-barack
From now on I'd like to see some kind of factual comparison against Buchanan, A. Johnson, Nixon and some of the other conventionally accepted worst Presidents.
One of the two worst presidents? Wow, how does someone get to this level of bias and ignorance? And when I mean ignorance, I don't mean stupidity- I mean you have a very limited knowledge of American presidential history- seriously, if you're going to throw that out there, what basis, other than a few talking points, do you have for characterizing him as "the worst"? If you're going to use the superlative, you'd better back it up or else risk being deemed as the fool many have probably already designated you as. Put up or .... you know the rest.
Just wanted to pointed out that Obama's message in 2008 was "Yes WE can." It was not HE can. Once he got in office and realized that no one in congress was part of his WE, he obviously didn't. What else did you expect?
Comparing Bush and Obama, lol. Bush had a surplus, no wars, a relatively healthy economy and Obama inherited 2 wars, a massive deficit, and the worst economy in 50 years from Bush. Yeah, let's compare.
As far as evil-pairings go, I think tax hikes and spending cuts beat fealty and beheading, or poverty and corruption. Perhaps the only place where it's better is Europe: boredom or insolvency.
That pretty much takes care of Bush. And Obama is just a continuation of Bush. I may not have studied years of history (my opinion of modern history is mostly based on the last 20 years) and I may be too young to really know about previous administrations, but I do stand by my statement. These two administrations really ****ed this country.
I am not the only one who thinks Bush is the worst. A survey involving 238 Presidential Scholars seems to agree with me- http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/...nt_research/Presidents Release_2010_final.pdf
Whether he is the worst or not is not really what I was intending the topic to be. You are fixating on a tiny detail. Fact is, Americans were fed up following the Bush presidency and voted in an administration promising "change you can believe in," and this administration has to say the least, underdelivered (on the contrary, many Americans do not see any change at all and just see more of the same). The main question here is- what platform can he possibly run on? There hasn't been the "change you can believe in" which was the reason he was elected (many Americans are a lot worse off with many of those struggling already prior to the election) and clearly he can't run on change (change from himself doesn't make sense anymore).
A President doesn't come into office with a clean slate to do as he pleases. He inherits what's been left to him by the previous administration. You're overstating the power of the Presidency to undo what has already been done. You need Congress to fix **** ups like happened under Bush and Republicans have fillibustered Obama at every turn since he took office. It's been unprecedented. Obama's entire Presidency has been about fixing what Bush ****'ed up.
Someone calls you out on your ignorance to US history, which you admit, and then you stand by your ignorance? If that's your defense, quit reading and posting reason.com articles and read a book once in a while. Might learn something factual, or even form a credible and reasonable opinion.
That was a hack article. It only discussed military crap in comparing the two presidents. That stuff won't even be mentioned during the campaign. ...and this article suggests that will be Obama's legacy. Obama's campaign message won't be too hard. When he took office, the country was in two wars and the economy was in the crapper. As promised, he paUssed health care reform, shut down Iraq and the economy has fully turned around. Obama has done a good job ...all the while as Repubs intentionally sabatogged America with the debt ceiling debacle. Bush on the other hand left the White House in ruins ...not so with Obama assuming this is his last term ...which it won't be.
He'll point to shrinking unemployment numbers....a reminder about Bin Laden....health care initiative.....and then he'll point out the guy behind the other podium and say, "seriously?" He's got this.
Well, that's brilliant of you. "Umm, I don't know about Presidential history, but I stand by my statement that Obama is one of the worst Presidents ever." Remember, you didn't just say recent history, you said "possibly all of history." So, if you're going to throw that out there, you should know what you are talking about. And I'm not talking about the usual suspects (Washington, Lincoln, FDR). What was Calvin Coolidge's impact? Was Andrew Johnson really as bad as some claim? How does Bush Sr.'s economic policies match up against Obama? Did Carter's policies prolong or hasten inflation? What were Eisenhower's foreign policy accomplishments? Is Kennedy overrated? Can we even include William Henry Harrison in the discussion? You see, people like you who spout off this "Obama is the worst" nonsense without knowing his actual impact are the worst type of voters because you vote on heresay and ignorance. You are at the end of the proverbial telephone game because you take a distorted message from what you read on Newsmax and hear on Fox News and distill it into a simpleton, patently false soundbite. You're very similar to the individuals who look up Robert Horry's regular season statistics and say, "Man, that guy was one of the most overrated players ever" without having an inkling of an understanding that, in basketball, players that contribute significantly to championships are given much more weight than in other sports- thus, players like Steve Kerr, Vinnie Johnson, Robert Horry, Kurt Rambis, Mario Elie, and Chauncey Billups take on added significance. See how that works? Knowledge, my friend, knowledge. Once you do your research and find out that (1) Obama has kept many of his campaign promises; (2) he has broken others, which puts him at the same level as...Reagan, Clinton, and Kennedy, to pick a few recent Presidents; (3) the President's impact on the economy is usually exaggerated, so that a "Obama saved the economy" or "Obama ruined the economy" are both hyperbolic; and (4) in comparison, he can be ranked among the top or middle of Presidents over the last 75 years, as well as throughout history, you'll come to realize how your original statement was borne of ignorance and your revised thoughts are products of knowledge. So, please, research. analyze. assimilate. rinse. repeat.
Winning 59 Senate seats and 257 seats in the House wasn't enough? I've never before heard of a President being able to blame lack of accomplishments on "only" having 59% of both houses of Congress under his party's control.
