First of all, Bush is not running for office anymore.
I used bush as an example of broken promises when circumstances overtake agendas. It is a valid comparision designed to illustrate that in addition to all politicians lying to some extent, sometimes the most sincere promises made cannot be fulfil due to unforseen circumstance and events outwith of a presidents control.
Secondly, Obama has not offered anything except excuses and blame.
No, he has identified reasons (as opposed to excuses), attributed responisbility of failure to both himself, circumstance and opposition intransigence all of which is true.
Reagan inherited a far worse economy than the one Bush left behind and he was able to dramatically lower the unemployment rate from 10.8% to 7% by the end of his first term and further down to 5% by the time he left office. Obama's policies have barely budged the unemployment rate today.
Don't be ridiculous. Reagans recession was cause by runaway inflation. Way easier to deal with that than dealing with trillions in equity evaporating overnight, an economy hemmoraging 800,000 jobs per month, the financial system on the brink of collapse and the heart of american manufacturing on the verge of dying. Reagan had a cake walk in comparison, and yet, he still managed to triple the national debt.
I think he was absolutely in the right to try and close Gitmo, however when it comes to non U.S. citizens, such as prisoners or war, they are not granted the same rights as U.S. citizens and should not have access to the courts inside our country or a jury for crying out loud.
They are not prisoners of war. they are an entirely made up category by the bush regime 0 enemy combattants, which conveniently makes them prisoners that the geneva conventions do not cover. that is also why they are in guantanamo - a leased military base on foreign soil. So you believe that the constitution and the bill of rights only apply to citizens?
I'm not sure what happened with wiretapping but as for the Patriot Act, it was not created by a Republican, it was signed into law by a Republican, yes, but it was written by Joe Biden in 1996 and they had been trying to push it for years. When 9/11 happened, they used that as an opportunity to push the legislation through as they do with a lot of legislation, they used fear to make it happen. So, republicans AND democrats are both responsible.
Huh? where did you get that little gem about biden?
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama also supports the National Defense Act, as does Romney, read up on what that is, it's incredibly disturbing. Obama's way of doing things is too set in stone with no room for flexibility and that is why he will never be able to get anything done. Republicans are not the problem, Bill Clinton did just fine with a republican congress. That is again, just Obama making excuses and blaming others for his inability to lead.
I agree the National defence act is disturbing. America has given up a lot of liberty for security. Clinton in the last couple of years didn't do so fine while the republicans were trying to impeach him for a blow job of all things.
So conveniently ignore the "no compromise" stance of the teapublicans. conveniently ignore the republicans "fear" of nordquist and his not tax increase pledge. Nah, just because something was a contributory factor in results why shouldn't it be ignored. Why not ignore the global recession. Its not as if the US exports have an impact on the us economy. Its amazing how Obama is somehow a terrible leader, indeed he was so terrible he stemmed the hemmoraging of 800,000 jobs per month and has regained all of the job losses in the first 18 months of his term, saved the financial system from collapse, saved general motors, ousted a bunch of dictators, got bin laden, killed hundreds of terrorists, improved US image abroad, and on and on. Yep a really crap leader because he isn't the second coming and nor could he wave the magic wand to make it all better overnight.
