So sayeth the folks
.
In a new poll comparing President Bush’s job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.
The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).
On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton’s favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.
Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.
When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers — 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush — falling within the poll’s margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.
I wonder if Bush fatigue + Clinton nostalgia = President Hillary?
Not necessarily, but there is no doubt that the losing Democratic candidate will have the endorsement of CNN.
A family feud of such magnitude can only be bad for the United States.
Let’s assume this poll is dead on. So what?
The only possible remaining fig leaf for GWB is that he is the ultimate
Idiot Bastard Son who can’t find his ass with both hands unless he
has an enabler coaching him. F*****Up the GWOT, CIA, State Dept,
Int’l relations. Yet he continues on his bone-headed, spine stiffening
idiocy with the the temerity of someone who truly believes he right on
the money. He must be removed from the wheel of this runaway train
before it derails and becomes nothing but scrap metal.
Like we needed a poll to figure that out !!
Digby raises an important point.
It should be noted tht not only does our last democratically-elected President outperform AWOL George in every category, he did so without the benefit of a Congress that rubber-stamped everything he did. President Clinton outperforms AWOL George despite having a Congress that obstructed him at every turn.
Plus, AWOL George had 9/11 which was a tremendous opportunity to unite the nation and the world–and completely squandered it. AWOL George was handed a robust economy and fouled it up.
Face facts, Repugs: AWOL George is the epitome of incompetence.
I think Bill should run again.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, the Clinton administration has been over for over five years! Why can’t you left-wingers just GET OVER IT?
(Loosely paraphrased from Democratic talking point #457, between “Republican culture of corruption” and “tax breaks for the rich.”)
J.
JayTea;
strike ‘left-wingers’, insert ‘Wing Nut Nation’.
Leo, it’s simple: according to the rules established by the left, the Clinton administration is only allowed to be brought up for praise. If it’s brought up for criticism, THEN it’s time to trot out the “get over it” argument.
You better check with Oliver — obviously your playbook is missing a few pages.
J.
I’m not too impressed- Americans tend to have a short memory. While I too would probably put Clinton over Bush, I think that the poll’s results indicate a displeasure with bush, not a love of Clinton.
And I’m with mucker- Are there no other political forces in America other gthena the Bushes (Jeb) and the Clintons (Hillary)?
Let’s see, Reagan hasn’t been President for almost 20 years and has been dead for about 2 - yet that hasn’t prevented the right from again and again and again and again using his presidency as some sort of marker for when all was good in America (while ignoring the man’s deplorable record). So pardon me if we can’t help but to compare how Bush and his immediate predecessor stack up and how President Clinton beats the hell out of him to an amazing degree.
Good question, LB.
I think it’s a case of “symbol as reality”: Bush symbolizes evil, Clinton symbolizes good. (I believe both symbols are erroneously assigned, but they are what they are).
In reality, they can’t be replaced, so where do we turn?
They each have to anoint (endorse or appoint) a replacement. That’s why either Sen. Clinton or Gov. Bush would be inappropriate. The days of Camelot and dynasties are over.
I can think of other things that they both did poorly, but stop; Oliver you don’t live in India. The Ghandis’ finally realised that, if they want to have a Ghandi family in 20 years time, then they had to stop running for top office. In the USA there are more credible names than H Clinton and J Bush
BTW, just to add that I think we are still paying the price today for those two mistakes of Reagan’s. They are, for better or worse, a significant part of his legacy.
J.
OK, Oliver, fine. But let’s take the good with the bad: during Clinton’s watch, Al Qaeda killed a LOT of Americans in major attacks on sovereign US territory (four, by my count) and did nearly all the groundwork for 9/11. He also rode an economic bubble that anyone with a lick of sense could see was a soap bubble, built on air, and could have burst at any instant. North Korea was given deal after deal to end their nuclear program, and still got away with it. China bought its way into our ports, politics, and military secrets. And about 900 people’s highly-confidential FBI files somehow meandered into the White House — and those records contained a hell of a lot more sensitive material than phone bills. A bunch of people who didn’t deserve it died at Ruby Ridge and Waco. That’s just off the top of my head.
Reagan… I’ll give you two bad things. First, he didn’t take the threat of Hizbollah seriously in Lebanon, and 242 US Marines paid the price — and laid further groundwork for the reputation of the US in the Middle East as a paper tiger. Secondly, he signed the 1986 Immigration Reform Act, which continued 20 years of bad immigration policy and set up the current demands for amnesty. But no one with any shred of intellectual honesty can say that the United States was not substantially better off on January 20, 1989 than it was on January 20, 1981.
J.
bryan, I once heard a report on NPR about Indian politics after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. The Indian being interviewed said “The Gandhis have been out of power before, but this is the first time India has been out of Gandhis.” Tasteless, but blackly humorous and at that point sadly true.
J.
A bunch of people who didn t deserve it died at Ruby Ridge and Waco. That s just off the top of my head.
You’ve gotta love JayIDTea’s fractured history.
Somehow, our last democratically-elected President was President in August of 1992 (several months before he was elected and a couple more before he would take office) when Ruby Ridge occured.
And that the folks at Waco deserved to be left alone after they murdered several law enforcement agents.
Wizbang should be synonymous with ignorance.
More lies from JayIDTea:
. He also rode an economic bubble that anyone with a lick of sense could see was a soap bubble, built on air, and could have burst at any instant.
This can only be written by someone who shouldn’t be trusted to make change at McDonald’s. The so-called ‘Tech Bubble’ comprised less than 5% of the economy; thus if, all tech companies had “burst”–the economy should have seen about a 5% decline. And it’s important to note many tech companies didn’t go under–they remain viable and thriving performers in the economy.
But what of Alan Greenspan? Did he not have a lick of sense? After all, he called Bill Clinton’s economy the best in 50 years.
North Korea was given deal after deal to end their nuclear program, and still got away with it.
In reality, Bill Clinton curbed North Korea’s nuclear weapons ambitions. When Bill Clinton left office, it was suspected–repeat–suspected No Korea might have had 1-2 nukes. Now, we’re positive in has at least 10.
China bought its way into our ports, politics, and military secrets.
Brought to you by the Moonie Times. No basis in reality.
And about 900 people s highly-confidential FBI files somehow meandered into the White House
And the result of the Independent Counsel’s investigation into this matter?
Better research, JayIDTea.
JadedGoldenShower, I’ll give you Ruby Ridge. That was careless of me. The fact that the ATF bungled both so closely stuck in my mind, but I didn’t recall that there was an election in between ,and didn’t doublecheck.
But Waco — “a couple of them killed some cops, so let’s kill over two dozen children?” I thought you were the one who was always howling about civilian casualties. I guess it’s DIFFERENT if it’s ordered by a Democratic Attorney General vs. a Republican Secretary of Defense.
The economic slowdown started before Clinton left office, BTW. Read a little more history.
And I’m absolutely CERTAIN North Korea gave up on its nuclear program right up until January 20, 2001. Clinton and Albright just worked WONDERS there.
J.
What I find fascinating is that the public thinks Clinton is more honest than Bush. One central component to Clinton’s legacy is his dishonesty. We even use the term “Clintonian” to describe legal parsing just short of lying (definition of “is” is). Ask anybody to tell you what they remember about Clinton and they’ll say a) He felt your pain; b) The economy was great; and c) he was a liar and a womanizer. Yet, in spite of that central part of his legacy, and in spite of the fact that Bush has always benefited from being a so-called “straight shooter”, Clinton is perceived as more honest than Bush. That is truly astonishing, and probably the biggest indictment of George W. Bush. It is also the reason why his Presidency is effectively over. Without that “regular guy” appeal who “calls it like he sees it,” Bush has nothing in the tank.
From the Anchoress
Jade and JayTea,
The Ruby Ridge Judgement was news at about exactly the same time (and, allegedly with some of the same personnel) as Waco kicked off. Some say the Feds were “pulling a Reagan” (invading Grenada to cover up Beirut).
Jadegold quotes Digby:
“It should be noted tht not only does our last democratically-elected President outperform AWOL George in every category, he did so without the benefit of a Congress that rubber-stamped everything he did. President Clinton outperforms AWOL George despite having a Congress that obstructed him at every turn.”
This shared power under which one party controls the WH while the opposition party has the US House can achieve a decent compromise on the way to legislation that benefits more of the people. Compare that to GOP rule that benefits the wealthy and the corporate at the expense of individual rights.
If the Dems take the house this fall it may actually result in bush becoming more popular because he may choose to be more statesmanlike (as was his reputation as ‘a uniter, not a divider’ governor of Texas) and compromise more on legislation. Nah.
Iran-Contra (selling to one terrorist state to arm another arguably terrorist organization…a two-fer!)
Arming Saddam (here’s looking at you, Rummy)
Arming the Mujahideen (and Osama bin Laden)
Raising the national debt from 1 trillion to 2.6 trillion, doing nearly double the fiscal damage of every other president combined…still, he’s no G.W., who is on course to pushing the debt to a staggering 10 trillion + …at least (he’s at nearly 8 1/2 trillion).
As for Reagan’s economic performance, you have to lean on the Cato Institute’s rather selective use of economic data to make the argument that Reagan was an economics powerhouse for anyone other than the very rich. There are other, less generous perspectives on this issue.
I’d say there are numerous reasons to be critical of the Reagan years.
Still, I’d take Reagan over Bush in a heartbeat, regardless of how much I disliked many of his policies. But hey, with Cheney pissing off Putin, maybe we can have a new Cold War to go with our phony GWOT! I gotta get me some stock in Halliburton!
Speak of the economic devil..
His findings are based on the premise that earned income continue to rise, as taxes remain the same, or increase. This is just plain not so.
Imagine you’re crossing a bridge everyday to go to a number of places (shopping, work, church, your favorite restaurant, the movies).
As you continue to do so, the cost of everything is going up, and, from time to time, the cost of crossing the bridge is going up.
Do you
1) Keep crossing the bridge, no matter what the cost;
2) Change your driving habits to reduce the number of times you cross the bridge (thus reducing the bridge revenue)?
Well?