CNN poll finds Americans equally split on Obama vs Bush
According to this recent CNN poll the country is evenly divided on which president has done a better job in his tenure in the White House–Barack Obama or President Bush. In this poll Barack Obama leads President Bush by a margin of 47-45 percent.
Why does this matter if President Bush is gone and is not in this race? It matters because President Bush is in this race. President Bush has remained in politics even in his retirement; he has been kept in the public eye by Democrats who are constantly reminding us that everything is his fault.
Many of us have been wondering how long Barack Obama and the Democrats would be able to get away with the blame Bush mantra that they have been using for what seems like years now. During the 2006 mid-terms and the 2008 presidential election it was perfectly understandable for the Democrats to lay all the blame at the feet of the president because he was in charge–it may be a little disingenuous, but that is the way it goes.
However, with Barack Obama’s policies in place and their failure plain to see by everyone who is paying attention the Democrats have continued to try to lay the blame on President Bush. What this poll tells us is that blaming Bush for everything may no longer have the impact it once did:
Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush’s name while campaigning this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland
At some point the Obama regime needs to start taking responsibility for its failed policies and if this poll is any indication it just might be that people are beginning to question Barack Obama’s policies.
If the Democrats have decided that running against President Bush one more time is a good option they may have miscalculated; what they may find out is that people are no longer as upset with President Bush as they once were and this strategy may backfire on them.
If Democrats continue to remind people how bad it was under President Bush and people begin to look back on his presidency and see that for most of his eight years in office his policies led to an unemployment rate of around 5%–half of what it is today–people will start to question Democrats as to why they are any better than President Bush.
It is interesting that so many Democrats have decided to run against President Bush one last time rather than run on their record under Barack Obama; could it be that they are embarrassed with what little they have accomplished after all of the lavish promises they have been making over the last several years? Are they trying to hide their failures by diversionary tactics?
People are getting tired of the finger-pointing, they want results and to this point they have seen none. Democrats can blame Bush all they want but the truth is they have been in power for four years–including the takeover of the Congress–and the situation has only worsened. It is time for them to take responsibility.
In this election the people are going to judge the Democrats on what they have done; George Bush is in the past and a non-factor outside of the far left fringe Democrats who still harbor a deep seated hatred for the man.
This election will be a referendum on Barack Obama–for better or worse– no matter how hard the Democrats try to deflect the blame. The American people are going to judge this Congress on their actions–not the actions of the past.
America's Watchtower 
That’s quite a strategy. Block everything the Democrats try to do and then blame them for not doing anything. It might be good for the Republican party but bad for America.
LikeLike
You continue to willfully ignore the fact that Democrats had a super majority in the Senate and an undefeatable majority in the House, the Republicans could stop nothing. Democrats realized that every vote was neccessary to pass Obama’s agenda and they began to take advantage of the super majority by holding out for special deals–ie Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. The American people grew tired of this type of backroom deal from the Democrats and this is what led to the election of Scott Brown and the end of the Democrat super majority. The Democrats had the chance to do whatever they wanted and they blew it.
LikeLike
Uh oh, Ben’s back. I am so not going to go there.
Sooner or later, the Democrats are going to have to face the fact that they have not done such a bang up job. Come November 2, the American people will be glad to show them that fact and hopefully, show a lot of them the door.
LikeLike
[Sooner or later, the Democrats are going to have to face the fact that they have not done such a bang up job. ]
How so? The stimulus put millions of people to work and improved our infrastructure. Sure, you could list all the problems with it, but a lot of good came from it that has made our country better. The banking regulations had to be watered down in order to garner enough votes to overcome the filibuster, but it’s better than nothing. The health care reform also is a piece of crap due to having to overcome the filibuster, but it’s better than nothing.
So what do Republicans have to offer? Why would you vote for them?
LikeLike
The stimulus put millions of people to work? If that is the case, then why is unemployment still so high? How has it made our country better? We are in much more debt today because of the money that was borrowed to fund the stimulus and the economy is still in the tank. That’s no strange fact, given that government spending has never been able to stimulate the economy. The only thing it stimulates is the government itself and I think we have had quite enough of that, thank you very much.
What do I think the Republicans have to offer? How about fiscal responsibility, smaller government, less government intrusion into our personal lives, etc. That is what we are expecting and if they fail to deliver, then we can vote them out and let someone else have a go at it. That’s why I will be voting Republican on November 2.
LikeLike
Ben, you are basically admitting that all of Obama’s policies suck, but you agree with them anyway? I guess you just have low standards when it comes to the Democrat party.
LikeLike
Well said Larry!
LikeLike
[The stimulus put millions of people to work? If that is the case, then why is unemployment still so high? How has it made our country better?]
If you’re losing jobs at the same time you’re adding jobs, you don’t gain much, but without it, things would be a lot worse and unemployment would be even higher. Many of those jobs were created to improve our infrastructure. We have improved roads and bridges, an improved energy grid, new civic facilities… Those things were needed anyway.
[That’s no strange fact, given that government spending has never been able to stimulate the economy. ]
Sure it has. During the Great Depression, unemployment went down nearly every year after the New Deal started. It went from 25 to 15 percent in 1943 when we entered the war. Unemployment would be around 11.5% now without the stimulus. It increased GDP, gave thousands of loans to small businesses, prevented layoffs of teachers…
[What do I think the Republicans have to offer? How about fiscal responsibility]
You have got to be kidding. The federal debt tripled under Reagan and doubled under Bush. We had a balanced budget under Clinton. The last thing republicans offer is fiscal responsibility. And if they manage to cut the size of government now, that will increase unemployment, which will decrease tax revenues and increase the debt.
[Ben, you are basically admitting that all of Obama’s policies suck, but you agree with them anyway?]
I didn’t say that. I said they were better than nothing and we’re a lot better off than if Republicans were running the show (which isn’t saying much).
LikeLike
And don’t forget… 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts. Nearly 300 billion dollars which did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy.
LikeLike
Oh Ben you have the nerve to cite the great depression, you are indeed a revisionist. The unemployment rate stayed about the same from 1929 to 1939 during which time the government spent billions with little or no impact. The only thing that ended the Great Depression was World War II. Although given little press there was another great depression perhaps worse than that of 1929 from January 1920 to July 1921when the GDP declined at a rate of 6.9%. What was the big difference? The government stayed out of the commerce business and let the free market take care of things. What could have been a disaster was only a blip on the radar with a length of 18 months where the Great Depression of 1929 lasted 132 months….with the governments help!
LikeLike
Larry, the Democrats had the chance to do whatever they wanted to do and they blew it. They have nobody to blame but themselves. Now we will make them pay.
LikeLike
I do find this interesting. Considering that the MSM spent almost 9 years vilifying Bush, and and Obama has rehabilitated him in less than two years, what does that say about the long term propaganda value of the MSM? Add to that the Bush was marginally Conservative at best, and it think it speaks volumes about the Democrat/MSM propaganda machine.
Come to think of it, the MSM has been trying to describe Carter as a successful POTUS, and that is failing as well.
LikeLike
Great point, it took Obama–with the media doing its best to prop him up–much less time to lose the trust of the American people than it did GWB, who had the media trying to tear him down.
LikeLike
We ALL need to face this fact, the Dems and Repubs BOTH suck…
Put the party politics away, step back from the *I love Saint Sarah* meme and realize that it’s not going to happen with the current crop offered by either party…
As a nation, we are screwed… Sadly, we did it to ourselves…
LikeLike
We did do it to ourselves and it took many years to do it. But we have to hold out hope that we can turn it around. If Sarah Palin is the best the Republican party can do in 2012 we are in trouble indeed!
LikeLike