GW Bush, Clinton & Reagan Compared

Black Swan

Last night Jay Leno made a joke about GW Bush's low job approval rating when leaving the presidency. Will historians declare GW one of the worst presidents in US history? CBS reported earlier:

"President Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll showing Mr. Bush's final approval rating at 22 percent."

In comparison...

"Both of our two most recent two-term presidents - Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton -- ended their eight years in office with high marks. Each had approval ratings of 68 percent when he left office."

Sources:
http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2006/03/23/in_depth_politics/frameset1433259.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/15/opinion/pollpositions/main4724068.shtml

Pocono Joe

I think history will be far kinder on Bush than you are. But I think he will fair far better than Obama in terms of history (so far anyway). As for the approval ratings upon leaving office, I can’t argue the facts. Only to say, American’s aren’t always the sharpest knives in the drawer.

pwd

Reagan was senile when he left office

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I think history will be far kinder on Bush than you are. But I think he will fair far better than Obama in terms of history (so far anyway). As for the approval ratings upon leaving office, I can’t argue the facts. Only to say, American’s aren’t always the sharpest knives in the drawer.

I know: they voted for George Bush after all.

Edit: If I understand correctly you think the American people are stupid for disapproving of George Bush's presidency, even though they voted for him in the first place. On the contrary it seems they wised up and saw through his bs. And I don't appreciate being called stupid. Or a dull knife. Or a utensil in general.

GuanYin

You know, if someone were to make such generalized comments about any other nation noone would question me banning them from the forum. I'm not quite sure why you guys think it is ok in this case.

Regarding presidential comparisons, Clinton certainly benefited from NAFTA and the initial work by George HW Bush to battle Regan's deficit. I'm not sure Clinton would have won the election were it not for Perot's intervention. However, in my view, he was the best president in my lifetime thus far.

Suggesting now, that GW Bush was or will be a better predident than Obama is laughable and naive. Time will tell, but making the call now is little more than prejudicial conjecture.

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Only to say, American’s aren’t always the sharpest knives in the drawer.

An unfair sweeping generalisation about Americans that offers no substance to our comparison between three past presidental job performance polls?

Back on subject... What I found fascinating about these three polls was that Reagan and Clinton were very different in their approaches to governing America. Reagan the conservative Republican, and Clinton very representative of the Democratic party of the time, both ending with the same high job performance percentage rating after two terms in office. Both endured strong controversies late in their presidencies, Reagan with the Iran-Contra Scandal, and Clinton with the Monica Lewinsky Sex Scandal, yet they both finished on their final day with relatively high job performance ratings when compared to other presidents polled (tied at 68 percent).

It would appear (although few may agree in terms of the policy differences), that in spite of scandals, and being from very different party platforms, the polls suggested that overall, during each of their 8 years in office, there was some measure of job competence when Republican Reagan and Democrat Clinton governed as presidents? In comparison, the extraordinarily low 22 percent job performance rating of GW Bush would suggest the opposite; i.e., that GW Bush was viewed vastly incompetent after his 8 years as president? Why?

• Two unresolved wars (Afghanistan and the 2nd Gulf War), costing American tax payers billions of dollars per month, the latter using false information regarding weapons of mass destruction to justify the war before Congress and the American people
• Failure to respond in a timely manner to the major Katrina disaster
• Questionable human rights record, and associated scandals in the rendition, treatment, and torture of Gitmo detainees
• Questionable civil rights record when violating the privacy and due process protections by spying on millions of innocent American citizen telephone and Internet communications (as well as spying and violating the civil rights of thousands of innocent American college students when they checked out books from university libraries)
• The scandalous poor treatment of injured returning soldiers in Veteran's Hospitals
• Doing virtually nothing in terms of policy actions (not words, but lack of action) that would have served to mitigate the largest financial meltdown in US history since the Great Depression (especially when leading the Republican party that controlled both houses of the US Congress for the first 6 years of his presidency)
• Mortgaging the economic livelihood of present and future Americans by almost doubling the federal deficit from approximately $5.6 trillion to an historic high of about $11 trillion, evidencing a lack of fiscal responsibility or competence occurring during 8 years of presidency (with the recession impacting only in the last year of office)

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I think history will be far kinder on Bush than you are.

No, history will not be kind to GW Bush, giving him a lower grade point average than he got while at Yale University (GW Bush was a "C" average student, without distinction or merit).

Does anyone wonder why most Republicans running for high office tended to distance themselves from GW Bush during the 2008 elections (including self-proclaimed "Mavericks" McCain and Palin)? Was it because Bush was doing such an outstanding job?

Pocono Joe

Guess my political humor needs a lot of work . Sorry to those I might have offended.

Regarding Bush, okay yeah, I think he got some things wrong, like:

• Not getting congressional buy-in on detention policy immediately after 9/11.
• Standing by his people for too long when they failed, rather than holding them accountable.
• Not replacing George Tenet after 9/11.
• Deferring to his generals, making him look overly passive during much of the Iraq War.
• Not taking charge quick enough during Katrina.
• Too much accommodation of a GOP Congress.
• Bad communication skills.
• Ignoring health-care reform for too long.

With that said, I think he also got some things right, like:

• His courage in troubling times.
• The “surge” which saved the course of Iraq.
• His decision in 2001 to not go along with the disastrous Kyoto global warming initiative.
• A rebuilding of presidential authority which had been badly degraded in the last 30 years.
• His unswerving support for Israel.
• No Child Left Behind.
• Medicare prescription drug benefit.
• Appointing John Roberts and Sam Alito to the supreme court.
• His strengthening of relations with east Asian democracies and India, without causing a rift with China.
• Enhanced interrogation of terrorists in a new and dangerous world ( I know I stand alone here on this one).

As for his favorability ratings, I think his presidency was ultimately hindered by his moderate and centrist views. The more that Bush drifted toward the middle, the worse his approval rating became. But bottom line is I think his presidency was far more successful than not. But yes… only time will tell.

As for my comment about Obama and my outlook being premature, history judges on substance not symbolism.

• "Candidate” Obama promised a new openness in government. But the biggest spending bill ever was drafted behind closed doors.
• “Candidate” Obama pledged to weaken the influence of lobbyists. But lobbyists received copies of the "stimulus" bill before lawmakers did.
• “Candidate” Obama pledged a bipartisan approach to government. He could have had a true bipartisan package if he was really concerned about bipartisanship and have insisted upon a stimulus package more Republicans bought into, or he could kowtowed to Pelosi and Reed (the Frick and Frack of heavy federal spending) and his liberal base. I think history will fault him for choosing the later.

I think Obama also consummated the tone of his presidency with his recent “I WON” statement to republican legislatures. Bad, bad move from a man who won the election based on Hope and Change.

Is it too early to tell, probably, but I believe if Obama hopes to change the course of his legacy, he will need to match his actions with his rhetoric... Which I hope he can accomplish in the future.

banquo

Pulled from various sources (not written by me, copy pasted):

1) Transformed the immigration reform debate.

In 2006, there was a debate within the Republican-dominated Congress
over the future of America's 12 million undocumented immigrants. The
response of the House was mass deportation; the response of the Senate
was comprehensive reform with a citizenship path. President Bush
strongly and openly favored the latter approach, to the point of
essentially ending the debate within his party over deportation. It
cost him dearly among his base, but it moved the immigration reform
debate to the center and provided political cover for other
Republicans willing to entertain humane immigration reform proposals.

2) Declared the first federal ban on racial profiling.

During his first State of the Union address in early 2001, President
Bush vowed to end racial profiling. In 2003, he acted on his promise
by issuing an order to 70 federal law enforcement agencies calling for
an end to most forms of racial and ethnic profiling. The ban was not
airtight, but it was the first ban of its kind.

3) Accepted record numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers.

During the second term of the Clinton administration, the United
States accepted an average of 60,000 refugees per year and 7,000
asylum-seekers per year. From 2001 to 2006, under the leadership of
President Bush, the United States accepted more than four times as
many asylum-seekers--some 32,000 per year--and an average of 87,000
refugees per year.

4) Extended federal pension benefits to include same-sex couples.

Although President Bush's rhetoric has often been troubling, he has
yet to change a single federal policy in a way that detrimentally
affects LGBT Americans. Couple this with a 2006 bill he signed that
gave non-spousal couples the same federal pension standards as married
couples, his decision to appoint an openly gay man as U.S. ambassador
to Romania, his refusal to turn lesbian and gay families away from the
White House Easter egg hunt, his decision not to overturn President
Clinton's executive order banning federal employment discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation, and his warm words about the
vice-president's daughter and her family, and you have an
administration that is not as homophobic as many had feared it would
be.

5) Increased annual overseas humanitarian aid from $50 million to $50
*billion* - far, far more than any other U.S. President.

6) Oversaw 6 straight years of economic growth, with a over a million
new jobs created every year. (8 million since 2002)

Enjoy!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Spot on!

"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television. Does anyone see the craic in this statement by Bush?

Black Swan

banquo wrote: »

6) Oversaw 6 straight years of economic growth

While at the same time doing nothing during those 6 years of his presidency (while his Republicans controlled both houses of Congress) to mitigate the forthcoming worst economic recession since the Great Depression?

And during those 8 years of Bush, as well as during those 6 years that Republicans controlled Congress, what happened to the federal deficit? It almost doubled from about $5.6 trillion to $11 trillion, essentially mortgaging present and future generations of Americans with historic debt.

All those middle class retirement pension funds heavily invested in such equities as the DOW? What happened to them during the last year of GW Bush? The DOW lost one-third of its value and is still falling? Bush and the 6 year led Republican Congress had no fiscal responsibility for what eventually happened? The regulation of banks and Wall Street was a joke!

Source:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?PT=9&compsyms=&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&CP=1&C5=1&C5D=20&C6=2008&C7=1&C7D=20&C8=2009&C9=-1&CF=0&D7=&D6=&showchartbt=Redraw+chart&symbol=%24INDU&nocookie=1&SZ=0

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

No, history will not be kind to GW Bush, giving him a lower grade point average than he got while at Yale University (GW Bush was a "C" average student, without distinction or merit).

While at the same time doing nothing during those 6 years of his presidency (while his Republicans controlled both houses of Congress)

I’ve given you links to show what the republicans have done, yet you continue with the "NOTHING" nonsense. Your turn... Do you have links to support your comments (sound familiar?)

GuanYin

Why has GHW Bush been left out here?

Nodin

GuanYin wrote: »

Why has GHW Bush been left out here?

Having been judged roughly competent, without being insanely divisive (or being the subject of insane divisions) he is rather overshadowed by his two predecessors and he who succeded him.....or thats what I gather from the Americans I talk to, anyhoo.....

Otacon

GuanYin wrote: »

Why has GHW Bush been left out here?

Cos he only had one term?

GuanYin

Otacon wrote: »

Cos he only had one term?

Whoops, missed that part

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

With that said, I think he also got some things right, like:

• His courage in troubling times.

Theres a difference between 'courage' and being foolhardy. It took no courage to take on the Taleban, because of world support. It was foolhardy to go into Iraq, because of the lack of it, and any real reason to do so.

• The “surge” which saved the course of Iraq.

Petraeus, I think, was the name of the Gentleman who came up with that idea. In addition, its not clear whether the surge, or the simultaneous buying off of vast numbers of locals, was key to Iraq 'quieting down'.

• His decision in 2001 to not go along with the disastrous Kyoto global warming initiative.

Based on the presumption that it was disastrous, which is far from a given.

• A rebuilding of presidential authority which had been badly degraded in the last 30 years.

Unless "presedential authority" refers to a bath he had re-enamelled, you'll find that hes greatly eroded respect for the office. Not only that, be he allowed the growth of parallel offices whose sole goal was to bypass existing structures. His failure to rein in Cheney was nothing short of disgraceful.

His unswerving support for Israel.

......based on the presumption that that is a good thing.

• Appointing John Roberts and Sam Alito to the supreme court.

...a bit early to call any score on that one, given the length of time they'll serve. Unless you believe a conservative outlook is the sole requirement for being adjudged a success.

• His strengthening of relations with east Asian democracies and India, without causing a rift with China.

...offset by the short sighted support of the dictatorship in Pakistan, and the disastrous idea to persuade Bhutto to return.

• Enhanced interrogation of terrorists in a new and dangerous world ( I know I stand alone here on this one).

...hypocrticial, short sighted, dangerous, counterproductive....

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I’ve given you links to show what the republicans have done, yet you continue with the "NOTHING" nonsense. Your turn... Do you have links to support your comments (sound familiar?)

How many pages do you need, along with citations? Here's just a very small sample that suggests the GW Bush administration accomplished nothing (in action with meaningful results, not useless talk, talk, talk) to mitigate the coming of the biggest financial crisis in US history since the Great Depression. The first comes out of GW Bush's own mouth during an interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC:

GIBSON: "Do you feel in any way responsible for what's happening?"

BUSH: "...I'm a little upset that we didn't get the reforms to Fannie and Freddie -- on Fannie and Freddie, because I think it would have helped a lot. And when people review the history of this administration, people will say that this administration tried hard to get a regulator. And there will be a lot of analysis of why that didn't happen."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/Story?id=6356046&page=1

"Nothing" accomplished to mitigate the forthcoming crisis, just talk! And during the first 6 years of his presidency he led the Republican party that controlled both houses of the US Congress, yet "nothing" in action occurred (just talk) that could have reduced the suffering of the vast majority of American people during the financial crisis they now endure?

Worse still, the GW Bush Executive branch of government contributed through its actions to increase the severity of the financial crisis. The Security and Exchange Commission of GW Bush appointees, including its chairman Christopher Cox, not only did "nothing" to mitigate the forthcoming financial crisis, they contributed to the investment bank failures by 2004 decisions to loosen capital rules that allowed these investment banks to take on vastly greater debt, but also in 2004 decided to outsource risk monitoring to the investment banks themselves (which in the last case was akin to asking the fox to care for the chickens).

Source:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/entry/1056

To more specifically address the OP when comparing 3 past presidents, and how GW Bush will be viewed in the future, after only completing his first term of office as president:

"Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush's administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success."

"Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan...."

Sources:
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/18993.html

A second GW Bush term and 4 years later yet another poll agrees with these historians, giving him a mere 22% job performance approval rating when leaving office.

Pocono Joe

One last try before I start my quest to find and sample the Cornucopia of Kumbaya Kool-Aid. I think I’ll start my search where they stored those Greek columns used for someone’s acceptance speech. Wish me luck in my quest.

I really didn't make this stuff up in the video. It's for real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

One last try before I start my quest to find and sample the Cornucopia of Kumbaya Kool-Aid. I think I’ll start my search where they stored those Greek columns used for someone’s acceptance speech. Wish me luck in my quest.

I really didn't make this stuff up in the video. It's for real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

again though (and im not disagreeing with anything in the video at this point), can someone explain to me how the republicans, if they seemingly were able to predict this, why they didnt just muscle the legislation through using their 3 branch majority? I don't understand the system in DC quite as intrinsically as everyone else.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

One last try before I start my quest to find and sample the Cornucopia of Kumbaya Kool-Aid. I think I’ll start my search where they stored those Greek columns used for someone’s acceptance speech. Wish me luck in my quest.

I really didn't make this stuff up in the video. It's for real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

I didn't make up this thread title either....

GW Bush, Clinton & Reagan Compared

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

One last try before I start my quest to find and sample the Cornucopia of Kumbaya Kool-Aid. I think I’ll start my search where they stored those Greek columns used for someone’s acceptance speech. Wish me luck in my quest.

What does a reference to Obama have to do with comparing the 3 presidencies of Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush? History will show someday that GW Bush was INCOMPETENT consistent with his 22% job performance approval rating.

Overheal wrote: »

can someone explain to me how the republicans, if they seemingly were able to predict this, why they didnt just muscle the legislation through using their 3 branch majority?

Exactly the point I've been making on this and other US politics forums. Republicans controlled the US House, the US Senate, the presidency, and were stacking the US Supreme Court with judges favourable to their agenda (like Roberts), and accomplished absolutely nothing to mitigate the coming financial meltdown during the first 6 years of GW Bush? If they were the good guys, they would have done something, because nothing could have stopped them. But they accomplished nothing!

Many of the major investment banks in America failed, but why did their portfolio managers get million dollar bonuses for failing? One of the reasons is that the GW Bush appointed members (led by Bush's Chairman Cox) of the Security and Exchange Commission decided in 2004 to outsource risk monitoring to the investment banks themselves (like asking the fox to care for the chickens)! And the foxes ate the chickens, and now the American taxpayer is paying bailout monies in the billions, while watching their life long savings tied up in 401Ks and company pension retirement plans disappear (while the failed investment bankers receive millions in their accounts from bonuses). I wonder what party the vast majority of these investment bankers belong to?

"Financial workers at Wall Street's top banks are to receive pay deals worth more than $70bn (£40bn), a substantial proportion of which is expected to be paid in discretionary bonuses, for their work so far this year - despite plunging the global financial system into its worst crisis since the 1929 stock market crash, the Guardian has learned."

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking