As long as it's too early to criticize him it's too early to credit him, as well.

Yep.

Respect the role of POTUS and support Obama in patriotic optimism. Other than that, we need to all be sitting on the fence waiting. Yawn.

Can we credit him with being hot, though?

Not that he's actually the MOST physically attractive man, but he's not fugly, and power is sexy.

I understand your elaboration on deepimpact2's points, but that doesn't lessen my disagreement with them.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar...tion/na-bush18

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5800960/

http://www.cato.org/research/article...en-030728.html

These are all articles that criticize Bush over the economy. A quick google search with the terms "Criticism of Bush over economy" brought up over 5,000,000 hits. There's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to the various criticisms of Bush's presidency. So, the idea that Bush has somehow escaped criticism for his presidency seems a bit odd to me, to say the least.

If people are saying that the criticism of Obama is extreme...well, these are extreme times. Taxpayer money is being used

Also, while it may seem a bit hypocritical for people to give Bush a pass and then criticize Obama, I'm guessing that some of those same people who were calling for Bush's head will give Obama a free pass on his policies. For a quick example, will all of the people who criticized Bush on detainee issues now be criticizing the Obama administration because it hasn't acted quickly enough on certain detainee issues (the administration is still keeping the Bush DOJ's protocol on fighting habeas corpus petitions in a number of cases? Or, will they give President Obama a break on that issue? Like it or not, hypocrisy is a part of politics, and we've all been guilty of hypocrisy whether we like to admit it or not.

In my experience, people don't mind the hypocrisy as long as their candidate isn't criticized. I'm ok with that viewpoint, as long as people are honest with themselves about it.

There are a couple of issues with this statement. First, the re-election of Bush had a GREAT deal to do with the fact that the Democrats were unable to produce a viable candidate. They brought someone who has spent his career trying to ride Kennedy's coat tails and who has made a career of refusing to work "across the aisle."

This chart shows Bush's approval ratings over the years: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

In it you can see that his ratings were only particularly high in the wake of 9/11; other than that, it wasn't like there was an outpouring of support for Bush. I would also disagree with your conclusions as to when people thought the country was "screwed" because of his policies, or that re-election automatically equates to "wide acceptance" of his policies.

My opinion is that there are always going to be voters and people who feel that the President isn't receiving enough of the credit or enough of the blame. The people who say that Bush got a free pass, in my opinion, are analogous to the people who talk about how the media was out to get Bush. They are two sides of an extreme, and I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

LOL. No because I don't think he's hot. He's not fugly which makes him average looking. :)

I'm surrounded by hot and sexy black educators and hot, sexy, and powerful black businessmen.

The power of POTUS isn't sexy to me. It is much more stress and trouble than its worth. I like power that comes with a level of autonomy among other things. That is sexy. :)

Yup. I credit him with good communication (but thats him overall even before he was POTUS) and thats about it.
Hellz yeah! LOL. My President is hot!

Man, that hateraid got yo' vision blurred. lol. 2/3 is the majority and the majority has spoken.
Obama=Hotness
;):D

If Bill Clinton could get a little something on the side on the Oval Office Barack Obama can be considered sexy because of his power. Although I see what you're saying about the autonomy thing.

BTW has anyone heard the new White House scandal? Michelle Obama wears dresses that show her arms OMGTEHHORROR!

LOL I.A.S.K. 3 people is not a good sample size. Unless the population is 5.

Can anyone point to a specific Bush policy that tanked the economy? I'd appreciate the help, thanks!

I'm pretty sure it was his "Everyone must wear suits and ties while in the White House" rule.

Senusrat I = self-published novelist = autonomy = hot = Senusret I.

I mean think about it.

you're messing up the plan. The plan was to use b/s "statistical figures" to get the people to agree with what we want. Its in my Lobbying 101 handbook. I gotta work on my technique...and get someone who'll stick with the story along with me. See if you had agreed it'd be as good as law.

... But I passed statistics!

Barely, but still.

@ last paragraph--I agree.

I got a B in AP stats and then an A in Stats in college....See that proves I know what Im talking about and that Obama is statistically HOT. LOL!
:D:D;)
As long as we agree to go along with it DrChaos cant prove anything and she's still out numbered.

I can't figure out how to quote your whole post, so I'll just go off of this...I'll also say that some of the things we disagree upon are splitting hairs (defining "acceptance of his policies," how we define "hypocrisy" with regards to the issues, etc.), so I won't get any more into those issues.

From your comments, I think that we're fairly close in our feelings on some of the policy issues; there were some of Bush's ideas and policies that I thought had merit, and there were many that seriously perturbed me, as a Republican and as a taxpayer.

When I talked about "extreme times," and the criticism that goes with them, I meant that the decisions made are going to be polarizing decisions. Stimulus bills, bailouts, are sensitive issues, and they're going to rile people up on both sides. You see it here on GC...you've got one group that doesn't want to spend the money, you've got one group that's saying "You don't understand, it's not happening in your hometown," you've got another group that is very much in support of the social welfare aspects of it...there's just not a whole lot of middle ground.

My issue is that I have little patience for people who claim fairness or unfairness in the treatment of their candidate. We've heard for eight years how citizens felt that their criticism was stifled in the previous administration, and now they want people to keep their mouths closed regarding this administration. There are even individuals on GC who have said, to paraphrase, "Obama's the President, take it or leave it, no criticism allowed." It's by no means the majority of sentiment from supporters of President Obama, but it's a sentiment that's out there.

To me, there's ample amounts of fairness and unfairness in the expectations placed upon every President. While I agree that it's too early to evaluate President Obama's presidency as a whole, he's still made some decisions (regarding the stimulus, taxes, and handling of detainees) that are individually open to criticism. There are lots of smart people that have thought about these issues for some time, so they have every right to critique the way in which President Obama has responded to these problems.

Well, he got the bailout ball rolling, but that was post-tank.

:) You asked if he can get credit for being hot. You all go ahead and give him credit. I won't.

My response did not say that people can't criticize Obama EVER. My response said that people need to be fair and give him time before saying he's not doing a good job. It's really too early to discern something like that.

If you can point to a statement where I said I was looking for 100% disapproval of the Bush presidency I would appreciate it.

Believe it or not I saw acceptance of the Bush policies because people looked at it like this...they felt he was doing what was necessary to combat those big, bad evil terrorists. And then you have people who support the president just because he's the president.

With respect to your question about the constitutional issues, information about that has been revealed. i thought everyone knew about that.

To paraphrase, you said that Bush didn't get enough criticism or blame for what he did in office. During his last couple of years, his disapproval rating hovered around 70%. So, going off of your statement that this wasn't enough "criticism or blame," there's not much farther you have to go to come to a 100% disapproval rating.

And, believe it or not, I saw a wide disapproval of his policies. If you're talking about things such as the torture memos and the such, there's a huge segment of the legal world that has criticized the way the OLC handled the issue, and the way in which the Bush White House requested and framed the information.

And I think we still disagree about what would constitute "fairness" or "unfairness" in this situation. I don't think it's possible to judge Obama's entire presidency three months in. I think it is fair to judge individual moves, if one thinks that Obama is taking the wrong path on an issue.

Since the results of economic policies won't be known for years, and possibly decades (and may or may not even have an effect, depending on your view of cyclical economic trends), clearly we should not criticize until thirty to forty years after a President has left office, right?

This is the most disturbing youtube video -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&NR=1

HOW IN THE HELL DID WE GET IN THIS MESS?? This is how...

Why didn't we stop it when the clues were in?

I want to add that I don't think democrats are all to blame and republicans are all innocent in this (I know that this is produced by somebody with an agenda). To me, though, this video shows that many (and probably from members of both parties) were sounding the warning bell back then.

I guess honestly, I don't really believe that you do know much about that. I want you to name the issues that actually upset you, rather than just going with language that you've heard thrown around before.

I'd especially like it if you'd list these issues without googling.

It's not that I don't think Bush did shady, perhaps unconstitutional stuff; it's that I suspect a lot of people who complain about it couldn't actually discuss what was unconstitutional about it.

ETA: I'm not suggesting that whether you can list stuff or not makes Bush a better President. I just think, by most people's standards and understanding, the language gets really overused.

lol The sad part is that you are probably serious...

I would just appreciate it if you wouldn't assert that I said or implied that I was looking for 100% because that's simply not true.
As far as judging individual moves, I think that is fine with any president. However, I would also add that when doing so, it is important to actually look at things with an objective eye. Some people around here are not looking at his moves with an objective eye. I think some people are just looking for flaws simply because they don't want him to be president.

I forgot to add that I appreciate your disclaimer despite the fact that some folks around here had a hissy fit because you wrote that.

Not to be snide, but what should make us think that you're looking at his moves with an objective eye? I mean, it seems from your previous posts that you're an Obama supporter. What, then, makes your opinions any more presumptively objective than someone who didn't vote for him? Are you just ignoring any flaws because you want him to be President?

Chalking up people's concerns to them not wanting Obama to be President is a fairly narrow-minded way of looking at things. There's some of that out there, sure...but it's like you're cheapening legitimate criticism out of some idea that people don't have honest issues with his policies.

To be honest, I saw that a few people were disagreeing with you, and I didn't want this to turn into another round of "mob" allegations.

No, the sad point is that she is right.

Just for the record, I was never a W supporter. But UGAalum is right -- lots of people, especially those who fall into the "George Bush is evil/the worst president ever" camp -- seem to repeat the mantra that W trampled on our constitutional rights, but they can't actually identify those rights or discuss exactly how they have been trampled on, other than by repeating what talking heads have said.

UGAalum didn't ask what constitutional rights W is commonly accused of trampling on. She asked you to identify specifically what rights you think were "stomped on." Whether you like it or not, you can't be surprised when someone interprets your avoidance of answering that question to mean that you don't have an answer.

Exactly - I hear people shouting from the rooftops about all the terrible thinks W did when he was in office, but when confronted with specific questions, the best that many people can do is speak in generalities.

The thing is, if someone is that heated about issues in the Bush White House, it's also fairly easy to do some quick research and find out background, no matter the problem. The way the White House accepted the OLC's advice regarding the Torture Memos? The issues with wiretapping and invasions of privacy, in light of Supreme Court precedent? Problems with the manner in which habeas corpus was made available (or not made available) to detainees?

However, it's easier for many people just to shout generalities, instead of debate specifics.

This is absolutely true.

I don't have the vitriol towards W that a lot of people seem to have, and I can't think of anything really bad (or good) that he did while he was in office. I can actually think of more things that Clinton did that I didn't agree with. Obama's already annoyed me a few times since Jan 20. Maybe all this means that either I'm more conservative, or more politically apathetic, than I originally believed.

No. Actually, she is NOT right. She has no basis for making an assumption that I can only speak generally and not point to anything specific. She has no basis for making an assumption that my only research tool would be google. She has no basis for making an assumption that I am only repeating what SHE thinks I have heard from other people. So, no, she ISN'T right.

I am an Obama supporter, but I can still remain objective. Don't forget I have made it clear that I didn't support Bush, but I was still able to remain objective and agree with him on some policies and other things. I simply haven't made up my mind how I feel about Obama's moves yet. I'm just pondering it all and waiting to see how things work out.

However, I can still get an inkling of when people's attacks on Obama are more personal than they are objective. A prime example would be the attacks on his speaking ability. His speaking ability has nothing to do with the implementation of his policies and should be separated.

I would also like to add that when I speak of people disagreeing with him because they don't want him to be president, I am referring to a very small part of the population here. The people I am referring to have made it clear that they don't want him as president and have made it clear that they aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You seem to ignore the fact that I'm separating objective criticism from obviously personal attacks. You are making the type of blanket statements you accuse me of making.

I don't think it's fair to assume that people who complain are not also doing their research. I have done my research, but I'm picky about when I engage in a full discussion about it. If it's a forum that I think is appropriate and worthwhile, then yes, I will have a full-fledged discussion. Otherwise, I tend to be general.

I'm telling you, the Bush policy that threw us into this recession AND trampled all over the constitution is that all staffers MUST wear suits and ties at all times!

All jokes aside, though, most of the time I think that Bush's cabinet/advisors had more to do with his policies than he did. I know that's the point, but it was almost like he was afraid of disappointing them, if that makes sense.

I could see that. I know some people thought Cheney was the mastermind of everything.

I wouldn't agree with that - it's not like he was a puppet and you certainly can't go by the movie W.. It just seems that there was not a lot of diversity of ideals (at least on the points that the Bush Presidency will be most remembered for - foreign policy and national security) and he sometimes just seemed unsure of what he was saying. But, that could be just his speaking method.

I'd think since none of us were in the Oval Office during the Bush Administration we can't speak definitively on whether or not he was bullied. Cheney may not have been the mastermind, maybe he just looks too menacing for anyone to believe he was a big softy - we just don't know.

Although I really dislike Paul Wolfowitz, and some of the stuff coming out of the Oval Office I could just picture him saying - ick.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Your previous statement, that "some people" weren't being objective, seemed to show an opinion that you thought it was more than a "very small part of the population."

As to the criticisms of his speaking ability - I can only assume you're talking about DrPhil's comments. I would note, however, that DrPhil did not frame those criticisms in terms of his policies; she was making isolated comments about his speaking ability, and how she thought he was overrated as an orator. People criticize the speaking ability of Presidents all the time - they did it to Bush, they're doing it to Obama, and they'll do it in the future. When someone is that prominent a public figure, and makes that many public appearances, there are going to be discussions about their speaking ability.

Please re-read; I said "many," not "most," not "all," and not "the majority." I never said that I assumed people who complain are doing their research. Again, as I stated, there are lots of people out there who have complained about the Bush Presidency and have substantiated those complaints with specifics. Nowhere did I say that all complaints about Bush were coming out of ignorance of the issues.

While the absence of evidence is not guaranteed evidence of absence . . . it's a pretty good proxy in a conversational sense.

Here's what you're doing:

Them: "I think that people likely speak in generalities because they don't know the specifics."
You: "I know specifics, I just don't want to talk about them."
Them: "Do you really?"
You: "You have no reasonable basis for thinking otherwise."

Um, yes they do. You definitely don't have to share your research - you don't need to "do my job for me" or anything - but it shouldn't be surprising that speaking in a general sense (rather than specific) fuels assumptions that the argument is rooted in generalities rather than specifics. Most of the time, we use specifics to prop up our general arguments, and you've (apparently) made a conscious effort to not do this. That's fine, but it does play into the "them" assumption.

It's very similar to my (VERY BASIC AND POINTED) question about which Bush policies tanked the economy . . . in fact, it's likely identical.

Of course she does -- you have provided it.

You made a statement: "However, it is extremely unfair for people to be so judgmental about this administration when those same people tolerated an administration that basically stomped all over the constitutional rights of people in this country."

In response to that statement, she asked you a simple, specific question: "What constitutionally granted rights of people in this country do you feel were stomped on? . . . what specifically grinds your gears? (My emphasis.)

You answered her question, or more accurately avoided answering her question, by making the general statement that "information about that has been revealed. i thought everyone knew about that." (Really? You thought everyone knew what rights you believe were stomped on?)

You say you pick and choose when to have a full-blown discussion and when to be general. That's fine, and that's your prerogative, without a doubt. But as I said before, you can't be surprised if, when someone asks for a specific answer and you deflect the question with generalities, the assumption is made that you really don't have a specific answer. That assumption may, in fact, be incorrect. But a reader certainly has ample basis for making the assumption.