Barack Obama's most amazing feat as president has been to induce a nostalgia for the George W. Bush years. Bush's post-presidency popularity is only partly due to his all-promise/no-delivery successor. George W. Bush has been a model former president, abiding by Rule #1 of the How To Be a Great Ex-President Guidebook: Ex-Presidents Shouldn't Be Seen or Heard. If only Jimmy Carter had abided by this rule people might be pining for the days of 14 percent inflation, Russians on the march in Afghanistan, and idling automobiles waiting hours for gas. Then again, maybe not.

Ha Ha Ha!! I wrote here when Obummer was elected that he would make G.W. look like Thomas Jefferson by comparison. I was right!

Needless to say, G.W. was no T.J. But the O has so far demonstrated the all of the skill and competence of a burger chef.

Really? Is that why the DOW is up 75% from where it was when he took office opposed to Bush knocking it down 20%? Yeah, and Obama is the bad man... My ass looks more like Thomas Jefferson than Bush.

As well, troops in Iraq (the needless war costing $255 million/day) are being drawn down from their high of 175k to 70k... under Obama. Maybe now we can begin to fight the real war on terrorists.

As well diplomatic relations (something conservatives oft forget) between allies (minus Israel, another terrorist nation) and volatile nations are stronger today than ever under bush.

"minus Israel, another terrorist nation". fsda makes his/her points and then throws it all away...

Bush was such a horrible president that I still can't miss him. He wasn't 100 percent bad, but he was bloody awful, for so very many reasons. (Borders. Iraq. Spending. Harriet Miers. McCain-Feingold. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)

I hate Obama's presidency, and will be glad to see it end, but I find Bush impossible to miss. He was far, far to the left of where any Republican president ought to have been, and far to the left of where any Republican president realistically needed to be to preserve the support of the general public.

I remember Pat Buchanan discussing the economy and his personal finances when it was pretty clear in the Spring of 08' that a Democrat would be elected as President and how he was getting out of stocks and into more stable long term investments. His reasoning could not have been more correct because he knew that a Hillary, or more scary, Obama would be running the financial show.

Prescient to say the least.

Let us not forget that the high for the Dow was in the last quarter of 08' at around 14,000 and how it started to dip in first quarter of 08' and hung at 13,000 until it started to more precipitously lose share throughout the rest of that year until and after the election. In the first months of 09' (not coincidentally around the time of the Inauguration of the most radically left President we could ever imagine) the Dow bottomed out at 6547. Since then, it's been teetering below and around 10,000.

So it seems to be two completely different snapshots of the Stock Market when Bush was President and when he wasn't.

The current occupant of the White House has demonized Capitalism, has interferred with the market economy, investments, promised more expensive and intrusive government that we can't afford, has shown there is no end in sight for how much he will tax and borrow and has demonstrated a chaotic inconsistency that has made non-government business an unsure place to be.

I was not a great fan of Bush, but along with other such examples that highlight the differences between these two men, I would have him back in a New York minute.

"Let us not forget that the high for the Dow was in the last quarter of 08'".

Oops. That would be 07'.

Oh, you mean the high of the DOW that was the result of an enormous financial bubble caused by under-regulated banks during the biggest lame duck presidency since Nixon... which resulted in the gigantic crash during the last year of the Bush administration... which created the low of the first months of Obama... which has steadily been climbing upwards.

Buchanan just missed out. He is an extremest fool blinded, like yourself, by irrational party devotion.

Hey, fdsa, don't forget the housing bubble courtesy of Barney Frank (D). Or the fact that these banks were underregulated during both the Bush and Clinton years. Nice ad hominem attack on asdf though!

Can any rational person argue that the current administration is not in complete chaos and is not taking the country down by exercising blind power to push an extremist left wing agenda?

I would explain this with examples and facts in detail to rational people. But anybody who could support this current regime and defend them is just not rational.

You can argue about it all day long, but in the end the policies that the O and his brain dead robots are supporting will take them down just as quickly and deliberately as everyone else.

What has killed our country thus far is the fallacy of the 'trickle down' theory in the face of the reality of greed. That and our defense budget. One could argue that entitlement programs that we can't support currently like social security and medicare are also doing damage, but the fact is they could be supported if the two prior policies could be changed.

The fact is that 'socialist' programs like social security and medicare, that I'm sure you have supported in some fashion for years, are a draining force on the economy. So yes, protect us from terrorists while killing granny and let the disabled starve, its the American Conservative way.

And Northern E, why don't we get real if we are going to call out names, and point some fingers at Greenspan, who was appointed by whom? That's right-- the Ronald-the-champion-of-'trickle down'-Regan...

Maybe clinton was just as conservative and messed up as bush was liberal... but a lot of people think the blame lies not with frank but with greenspan.

I blame Regan and the money grubbing Reganites... The original yuppies.

Hey, no problem with you calling out names of politicians you think are in the wrong. It's when you sully the names of those posting here that you look like a troll.

Blame Reagan if you want. Blame Clinton, or Frank, or even Obama if you want. But don't tell the rest of us that we're "blinded fools" for having an opinion that you don't agree with. It makes you look small.

I'm sure a lot of blame lies with Greenspan, but Frank did EVERYTHING in his power to make it worse and has tried to absolve himself ever since.

"The fact is that 'socialist' programs like social security and medicare, that I'm sure you have supported in some fashion for years, are a draining force on the economy. So yes, protect us from terrorists while killing granny and let the disabled starve, its the American Conservative way."

This is an interesting statement. You're sure that Conservatives have supported programs like this for years? Programs that have been draining our economy for decades and that were instituted by two liberal Democrat Presidents and that have been fiscally unsustainable from the start?

You are a walking contradiction my friend. In your mind, it seems that Conservatives support huge expensive social entitlement programs that are broke yet we only care about protecting folks from terrorists while the unfortunates in our society perish? Huh?

"it seems that Conservatives support huge expensive social entitlement programs"

Which side was all concerned about 'pulling the plug on granny'? The right. Yes. Conservatives do support these programs, like I said, IN SOME FASHION.

And where the contridiction lies is in the conservative's desire to keep or 'fix' those programs while maintaining irrationally high budgets elsewhere.

and sorry NR, asdf is one of the only truly blind fools that I ever really see on here... him and tagemnbagem... They are led by their extreme ideologies like lemmings off a cliff to where they will never admit they were ever wrong about something. The Buchanan + Stocks thing is one simple example.

"So yes, protect us from terrorists while killing granny and let the disabled starve, its the American Conservative way."

Fsda...you talk of blind ideology, and then you come up with some tripe like this. You can't really believe that, and if you do, you're as extreme in your ideologies as you claim they are.

I'll agree that tagemnbagem is generally comedy relief, but you call asdf names for defending his views and it undermines your credibility as a debater every time.

NR...I like that. Think I'll keep it. Thanks!

Oh, and the Israel slam. Seriously dude?

"Which side was all concerned about 'pulling the plug on granny'?"

Ah, that would be the "side" who are the Party of abortion, eugenics and panels that would rather Granny get a pain pill instead of treatment.

Medicare, Medicaid, V.A. Medical, SCHIP – all the brainchildren of the left – all bleeding money and grossly inefficient and all ration care at the expense of customer need and satisfaction.

See? Now that was a reasoned argument, whether you agree with it or not.

How is it that lefties either don't know, or conveniently forget, that President O was funded by a majority of Wall Streeters and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs? How is that?

NR, what else do you call Israel's use of military force against Lebanon? You could throw Ireland in there too realistically. They used a car bomb a couple of weeks ago. That, in the middle east, is terrorism. And that last one by asdf wasn't an argument. He used no facts to refute anything I was talking about.

"all ration care at the expense of customer need and satisfaction." is only half the story. these limitations are direct corollaries of the conservative's desire to not fund them properly.

and sorry asdf, it was the Right that raised so much hyped up nonsense about 'death panels' if you recall... It was a major distraction technique that was used to stall progress on health care reform by scaring the public, as the right tried to appear morally superior touting that they wanted a socialist program to support end of life care for those that can't afford it.

And prevention is one of the central tenants of the medical policy of the left, not pain pills over treatment. The insurance industry has its hands too deep into policy to let that be effectual however. There is little money to be made in prevention when every dollar spent on prevention saves like $10 in future medical costs.

And while I admit they are bleeding money and need some reform, they are moral necessities for our country. 35% of costs currently go to paperwork and administration. That is absurd. And really... the VA?! SCHIP?! I believe all sides want soldiers to have all the care they need and can't afford, and impoverished children to get the care they need but can't afford as well. Children never choose to be poor.

If you are really conservative, admit that we should abolish the entitlement programs all together and let everyone fight for their own survival in a free market with no government intervention. I imagine THAT would be the ultimate degradation of our society. The life expectancy in this country would plummet. But face it, instead you support these socialist programs in some fashion.

I would call their use of force in Lebanon retaliation for years of cross border incursions and missile attacks...however rudimentary they were. I would also call it what it was...war, not terrorism.

What happened in Ireland...yep, terrorism. You seem to confuse the two.

"If you are really conservative, admit that we should abolish the entitlement programs all together and let everyone fight for their own survival in a free market with no government intervention."

Being conservative does not mean being radically Libertarian. Again, you confuse concepts.

War is when you fight your enemy. Terrorism is whem you kill civilians... which Israel has been doing for many years.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_U.S._weapons_create_Gaza_civilian_0102.html

and "Israel's campaign, begun after Lebanese Hizbollah captured two soldiers and killed eight in a raid on an Israeli border patrol last Wednesday, has so far killed at least 100 people, all but three of them civilians,"

taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/15/lebanon

they have been fighting a dirty fight for a long time. There are countless articles highlighting this. That is not war. It is terrorism masked as war.

Civilians are always killed in war. Israel's intent is never to kill noncombatants. It is the intent of their enemies to force them to do so. If no one bothered Israel, is there any doubt that Israel would not bother their neighbors?

Terrorism is when you deliberately target civilians. According to your logic, every country that has launched a war since the dawn of time is a terrorist state as is every country that has fought back.

Hamas/Hezbollah are avowed "enemies" of Israel and Lebanon has housed them (within the civilian community) pretty much forever.

And Webster makes the point more succintly ...Israel's enemies purposefully target civilians...Israel does not.

And Dan, is there any way of cleaning up the spam on the site. It's annoying to have to search for everyones comments.