World: Obama better than Bush

Mark Silva's search for a poll, any poll, that the White House would approve of, has ended.
Obama is, evidently, liked in Botswana! And Swedish socialists think he's pretty good.
In fact, the further a person lives from the U.S., the more that person likes Obama!

"BIG POPPY SPEAKS" I still hear the voices! Alberto still hears the voices! I got my "Immunity" I still hear the voices! Thanks to AT&T, Verizon Wireless and Dick! Ya'll miss me now! 4.6 Trillion Dollars later! 700 Billion dollar GOP Generational Theft by Deception deal or no deal! It was good for the GOP just not you! Sarah hears the voices! She's the Eve in EEVS! My Supreme court hears the voices! How's all that "hopey-changey" going for ya'll now! Hee Hee a Ha Ha! Hee Hee a Ha Ha! It was Generational! It was Theft! It was Joe, Dick, David, Fred and I!

First: "Mnnesota" is not a place I know

Second: who cares what anyone else thinks of us or him? This isn't high school. Pointless hand-wringing in my book.

Third: interesting contrast in Obama's job approval ratings from his *actual* constituents vs. those with significantly less skin in the game...the Real Clear Politics numbers I'm looking at on this page show just 48% approve, and ~47% disapprove.

It appears as though Obama is suffering the same fate as Gorbachev. The whole world loved Gorbachev too - except the Russians.

Obama is, evidently, liked in Botswana! And Swedish socialists think he's pretty good.
Posted by: Bruce, amused again | February 9, 2010 12:29 PM

Funny...you must not have really looked at the numbers. Actually, African region went up the least %. But typical response, of course only blacks could approve of a blackman. But by all means I await your "pasty white" polls to prove that once again, your polls mean more.

THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING FOR ALL LOONIE LEFTIES!!!!
*
The Fallacy of "Fairness"
*
Some years ago, for example, there was a big outcry that various mental tests used for college admissions or for employment were biased and "unfair" to many individuals or groups. Fortunately there was one voice of sanity-- David Riesman, I believe-- who said: "The tests are not unfair. LIFE is unfair and the tests measure the results."

If by "fair" you mean everyone having the same odds for achieving success, then life has never been anywhere close to being fair, anywhere or at any time. If you stop and think about it (however old-fashioned that may seem), it is hard even to conceive of how life could possibly be fair in that sense.

Even within the same family, among children born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, the first-borns on average have higher IQs than their brothers and sisters, and usually achieve more in life.

Nature's discrimination completely dwarfs man's discrimination. Geography alone makes equal chances virtually impossible. The geographic advantages of Western Europe over Eastern Europe-- in climate and navigable waterways, among other things-- have led to centuries of differences in income levels that were greater than income differences between blacks and whites in America today.
*
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/02/09/the_fallacy_of_fairness?page=full&comments=true

Back to the Drawing Board
Democratic fantasies face the bracing slap of reality.
*
Copenhagen, "green" jobs, "stimulus" bill, lobbying "reform", all failures.
*
Progressive Democrats, after being outfoxed by Ronald Reagan, triangulated to the policy margins by Bill Clinton, then routed under the first six years of George W. Bush, are having many of the nostrums they championed during the wilderness years tested in the real world for the first time in decades. The initial results of this long-delayed peer review have been a shock to the progressive system.

In the truer-believing regions of the progressive political world, the broad agenda of carbon price hikes, centralized health care, greater regulation, increased taxes, and government-mandated diversity in boardrooms are not just sound and moral policy. They are inherently popular, if only the usual obstacles to justice and reform can be neutralized or removed. Back when he was still considered a plausible stand-in for “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” (enough to win 2.7 percent of the presidential vote in 2000, much of it from progressives disgruntled at New Democrat policies), Ralph Nader insisted on a daily basis that his agenda was essentially “majoritarian.”

Such fantasies can serve as a salve when you live on the margins of the policy debate. And as long as you remain on the sidelines, the underlying proposals tend to go largely unchallenged. But now that progressive economic thought has its first real foothold in Washington since the 1970s, many long-marginalized ideas are being dusted off for real-world testing, from taxing stock transactions to “getting people out of their cars.” If we’re lucky, those debates will take place before the ideas are cemented into law. Better yet, maybe the growing unpopularity of central planning will dissuade the enthusiasts from inflicting their experiments on the rest of us in the first place.

How about this poll Bruce:
Could the Tea Party movement be losing ground?

Days after Sarah Palin headlined the nation's first Tea Party convention, a Rasmussen Reports poll released today shows that a generic "Tea Party candidate" would come in third in a theoretical three-way congressional contest.

The poll found that 36% of voters would support a Democratic candidate on a generic ballot, 25% would back the Republican and 17% would go for the Tea Party pick. Twenty-three percent of respondents are undecided.

Who really cares what socialist and third world countries think of President Bush.
The reason these countries like president panty waist so much is, he's trying his best to make us like them....poor and depending on the government.
Hey, misery loves company.

Paulo

Great. Just another fact for Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin to twist into some sort of outrageous indictment of Obama.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Too bad that we don't care what the "World" thinks, the "world" doesn't elect our leaders. Ozero's poll numbers are plumeting, the Dems are in big trouble going into the midterms and Silva digs up a "world" poll to try and defend the messiah. I only read the Swamp to get a good laugh in the morning. Between the brain dead liberal posters like Don (bring the troops home) and Silva with his snarky liberal partisan posts, this Blog is about the same as reading the Daily Kos or Huffington post.

Public Unions Bleed Taxpayer To Help Dems

Last year, 37.4% of public-sector employees were union members. That percentage was down near zero in the 1950s. For the first time in history, a majority of union members are government employees. Private-sector unionism is adversarial. Economic studies show that such unions do extract premium wages and benefits from employers. But that puts employers at a competitive disadvantage.

Back in the 1950s, the Big Three auto companies dominated the industry and were at the top of the Fortune 500. Last year, General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt and are now owned by the government and the UAW. Ford only barely escaped. Adversarial unionism tends to produce rigid work rules that retard adaptation and innovation. We have had a three-decade experiment pitting UAW work rules against the flexible management of Japanese- and European-owned nonunion auto firms. The results are in.

For example:
One-third of last year's $787 billion stimulus package was aid to state and local governments -- an obvious attempt to bolster public-sector unions.
And it was a successful one: While the private sector has lost 7 million jobs, the number of public-sector jobs has risen.

Meanwhile:
The number of federal government jobs has been increasing by 10,000 a month, and the percentage of federal employees earning more than $100,000 has jumped to 19 percent during the recession.
Obama and his party are acting in collusion with unions that contributed something like $400 million to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle.

Yeah...but...but....when Bush was President we never had any terrorist snow storm attacks!

Are any of these people going to be subject to obama's taxes? If they were, they'd be singing a different tune.
Maybe the press is also helping out, I still haven't seen obama mispronounce "corpsman" on any of the news channel's, the same channels that made a huge deal about how President Bush pronounced "nuclear".
Therefore - I guess we'd say that the "world" is just as uninformed as most obama supporters are! Ignorance is bliss, which would explain the blank stares on most democrats faces.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt.....THE WORLD (JUST LIKE 3/4 OF AMERICA) HATES REPUBLICANS!

For the last two decades, the Republicans have steadily purged themselves of all moderates, of anyone who did not toe the party line, of anyone who did not support the party leaders with every fiber of their being. Under leaders like Tom DeLay and a dozen other of the top far-right powerbrokers, apostasy was ruthlessly punished. Moderates were primaried out, the religiously or socially tolerant were excoriated, the legislatively balanced were forced from their positions -- all in service to a supposed permanent ideological governance, one that valued ideological purity over all else. Over knowledge, over experience, over common sense, over the very fabric of the law -- the ideology of hard-right conservatism trumped it all. Toe the line, and you were granted jobs in the administration, or positions of leadership in Iraq, or plum committee assignments. Voice disapproval -- and you were nothing. You woke up the next morning to a Bush White House Press Secretary declaring that you were a disgruntled brat, one with emotional or mental impairments that were responsible for your pitiable desertion.

After twenty years of purging, all the Republicans have left is that hard-right extreme. They shoved everyone else out willingly: it seems hardly surprising that now, faced with the fruits of it all, they are finding that all constituencies of the nation that they sought to condemn, belittle or purge are no longer interested in supporting them now.

I have no particular interest in them learning this lesson, of course. As far as I am concerned the last thirty years have proven modern conservatism to be not just ill conceived, but paranoid, divisive, willfully incompetent, obtusely premised, and in sum utterly valueless to the nation -- a waste of political oxygen. Something to be burned at the stake, and the ashes scattered, never to be heard from again.

But I expect they will, in the next years, at least try to retool their party into one that at least pretends to be more tolerant of, well, anyone not fully immersed in the notion that Ayn Rand and James Dobson rule the universe. The coming bloodshed between the two factions -- conservative true believers who can look at the last eight years and see absolutely nothing worth doing differently, nothing but a smashing but sadly misunderstood success, versus those that truly wish to temper the party in an effort to regain at least some semblance of their former power -- will, no doubt, be a glorious thing to behold.

So crybaby civil war guy, who cherry picks polls daily, whines about a poll that reflects favorably our country's image around the world.

Good news = bad in the blinded eyes of the rabid right fringe.

Get a life.

Score one for Obumbles on the all important issue of "what people living in other countries think of the USA."

Rainbows, unicorns, and lollipops for everyone!

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE LIKE US REPUBLICAN KNUCKLE-DRAGGERS?!?!

Waaaaaah!
.

I fear President Obama doesn't take National Security seriously. How can he let Anti-American/Confederate lovin'/Secessionist Todd Palin roam around freely? Todd "I hate being an American" Palin should be imprisoned for the mere idea of advocating the overthrow of the United States of America!!!

WOW LISTEN TO YOU RIGHTIE LOONS: BEAT THAT DRUM!!!!

Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | February 2, 2010 11:01 PM

Here's an idea, since we just want the world to love us. Let's sell our children and grandchildren into slavery and give away everything that makes all those foreign citizens want to leave their socialist welfare states, the facist dictators, the communist dictators, the corrupt shoot you in the head in the middle of the night and put you family in prison governments.

What the heck we've already accomplished the first part. No wonder they just love Obama. Soon they won't have anything to be envious about and will be "happy" to be "equal" to us.

DEAR REPUBLICAN TEABAGGERS

Dear Conservative Teabaggers

Nobody is trying to stop you from holding your stupid "tea parties." Please stop saying you're oppressed when you're clearly not oppressed. You want to have a "tea party"? Go ahead! Get to it! Take to the streets, pleasantly aromatic baggies in hand!

We've had a president (Bush) who decided that he could revoke the citizenship of Americans based on his own say-so -- and no conservatives were worried about their loss of rights. We've had a government under Republican leadership assert that it could spy on any communications, without warrant or cause -- and no conservatives took to the streets, alarmed at the threat to their Constitutional protections. We found out we went to war over a weapons program that didn't exist -- oops. We found out that we subjected innocent, though brown, people to imprisonment without recourse, and others to torture so cruel that it rendered them mentally incompetent. We buried the nation in a mountain of debt -- well, them's the breaks. We forked over billions of dollars in giveaways to oil companies that were already making larger profits than any other companies in the history of the world -- hell, gotta keep John Galt in caviar. None of it raised a peep from any of you, you were all fine with it. The government could do no wrong -- except not going far enough.

But if returning to the tax policies for the rich that existed before Bush is the one of the thing that's got a bee in your bonnet, claiming the end of the republic is at hand -- go for it. If you've suddenly decided that preventing government efforts to stave off a second Great Depression is the thing you're going to hang your collective hats on, or that saving one of the prime manufacturing sectors still left in the country is a bridge too far, by all means protest. Who's stopping you? Who's intimidating you?

On the contrary, the rest of us find your "tea bagging" to be superbly instructive. It's increasing taxes on the rich that gets your goat, and absolutely nothing else. The only Constitutional crisis possible is one that might possibly affect your wallet; offenses to other people's freedoms don't rouse a tenth of the same emotion.

And it stands as a dramatic act of solidarity with conservative leaders in government. Bloviate at every opportunity; remain steadfastly in opposition to everything; suggest nothing; claim that it is not even your responsibility to suggest anything. Like House and Senate Republicans, who have declared sitting on their hands to be an act of supreme virtue and who, when pressed, can only come up with a few terse pages of declarations that the only path forward is to give big businesses more tax breaks, and rich Americans more tax breaks, and eliminate even more regulations on financial behavior -- and that will work this time for sure, in spite of those same exact things bringing the country debt and corruption every other time they have been tried, finally leading to this current brink of economic ruin. No, it seems hard to compete with any acts of leadership as impressive as that.

So teabag your little hearts out, my noble friends! Take to the streets, and demand the conservative dream -- absolute inaction on every front! Turn the economic crisis into an opportunity to finally, at long last, give a damn about the actions of your leaders, who we have just now noticed might be of an opposing political party! Yes, take to the streets on behalf of the John Galts of the world: that's what Fox News Corporation has told you to do, and what the stock traders of CNBC demand of you! Take a day off work and wave those little white bags so that an executive responsible for financial crisis will not find their yearly bonus jeopardized by scandalous government intervention, or people making one hundred times your annual income will not be taxed a Stalinesque three percent more (marginal rate) than they presently are! Throw your little pouches of aromatic leaves high into the air, shout your grievances, demand the factories close and the government remain unresponsive, because that's what conservatives everywhere want to see!

Even the rest of the World knows that Republicans are full of crap and that pretty much explains how dumb the toothless rednecks who reflexively vote for them all the time are.

Both Republicans and Islamic militants are in a roughly similar position: A fanatical fringe committed to irrational Dark Age doctrines with no purpose and horrific human consequences, discredited by modern society and left with no recourse but to impose their will by naked power and insurgent sabotage.

Ask a Republican how to deal with a recession, and you would be safe in betting your life against a steak dinner they will not ask for specifics before laying out their prescription: Cut upper-income and corporate taxes and reduce public spending. They will not ask or state what current rates are, what they are relative to other rates, nor what they should be, because that information - the facts of the situation - has no bearing on their thinking. What counts is the act of cutting, which they regard as an expression of a moral principle.

Ask them how to deal with sluggish growth, or even how to encourage an already-booming economy, and their response will be no different: Cut upper-income and corporate taxes, and cut public spending. Iterate the question through as many different permutations as you please, the result will be the same - their "solution" is fixed in stone. To a rational person it becomes rapidly apparent that the GOP isn't playing with a full deck, but the problem goes much deeper than Republicans being Beavis-like creatures with a single response to everything: They do not even agree with the literal definitions of the nouns in the question, like "economy," nor do they even agree with the unstated assumption that the purpose of economics is to increase general prosperity.

This fact is easily illustrated by asking a simple question: What should be done if these tax rates and social spending are already zero? While some will equivocate, eventually you will get their honest response to that set of circumstances: Under those conditions, there is no problem to be solved.

Got that? If the taxes of the wealthy and corporations are zero, and no public money is spent (or "redistributed") on social programs, then there cannot be an economic problem by definition. Or, at least, they will claim that any problems which do exist are to be blamed on their victims, and thus by default there is nothing wrong with "the economy." If ten million people were homeless and starving, and the National Guard was in the streets to quell food riots, but the tax and spending situation were as they suggest, they would regard the situation as ideal and recognize no problem. This leads one then to question exactly what these maniacs think an "economy" is, and what they regard its purpose to be.

From countless conversations with Republicans, I believe I can say this with all confidence: They do not regard markets as tools to benefit society, but as magical beings or divinities whom mere humans live to serve, and whom governments exist solely to protect from "interference" by democracy, social activism, or unionization. It is these entities they regard to hold not only national sovereignty, but to define moral virtue.

Try to realize what these means: They do not even agree that it is desirable to increase the political power and economic prosperity of average human beings, because this involves compromising the unfettered operation of free market divinities whose "judgment" is to be regarded as the standard by which all actions are weighed. It is the "will of God" that millions of people be in desperate poverty and a select few live lives without challenge or accountability, so enacting policy which changes this state of affairs is a grave blasphemy that must be met with the most concerted rhetorical (or literal) violence.

For more than a thousand years, the European nobility were convinced of their divine right to privilege and comfort, and were mutually supported in their claims by Church doctrines affirming that the distinction between lords and serfs was sanctioned by God. That is why early attempts to bring democracy and social justice to the medieval world (yes, there were a few) were abortive, and always ended in the murder of the precocious freedom fighters. Similar dynamics are taking shape now, with a corporate nobility being supported in its claims to impunity by a conservative priesthood - the Free Market Mullahs - and its media in concerted, manic, desperate fury to crush mankind's greatest experiment and sink humanity back into the long night.

This poll really means nothing. Usually American Presidents that were popular overseas turned out to be average to poor leaders for the United states in foreign affairs. Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush the Elder were not popular overseas but turned out to be good Presidents regarding foreign affairs. Kennedy, LBJ (first part of his Administration), and Jimmy Carter were very popular in foreign countries but their administrations were full of foreign policy disasters. I left out Clinton, Bush the Younger and Obama because it is way to early to see how their policies in the field of foreign affairs will play out in the long run. And it is impossible to rate Obama because he has been in office barely over a year. Just because an American President is popular among European Socialists and in Sub-Saharan Africa does not mean they will be a successful President in American Foreign Affairs.

"Dave: who cares what anyone else thinks of us or him?"

Well, Dave. Here's the deal. We live in the world. We currently make up about 5% of the world's population. We are currently dependent on the other 95% for almost all of the clothes we wear, a large percentage of our energy, almost all of our electronics and most of the credit that the country is living on. If we were self-sufficient I would agree with you - who then would care what the world thinks of us? But unfortunately we live in a world that is growing increasingly competitive and where we are very dependent on those 95% for basic things that we need in our daily lives.

Just from a pure business perspective, doesn't it make sense not to bite the hand that put clothes on your back, that puts the TV on your wall and enables you to get a loan from your bank?

There is a fancy word for those who don't care about the rest of the world - xenophobic - which is defined as a person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign. That word is tossed around a lot and misused quite often but I think in your case it applies quite well.

I suggest if they love him so much let them contribute to all his hairbrained policies that will drive up our debt and place it on the backs of our children and grandchildren. The only reason the world loves him is because they want a handout - well, hey world we're broke so just forget about it.

NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING "WRONG" WITH THAT!!!
*
Prop 8 Trial Judge: Yep, He's Gay
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's sexuality an "open secret"
*
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Prop-8-Trial-Judge-Outed-as-Gay-jw-83808497.html

The best president in the world.Only the haters and the racists and the members of the 33/6 such as Palin, glen ,Limbaugh and more they know them self's.Thinks he is not good.

HERE'S A POLL THAT MATTERS A WHOLLLLE LOT MORE!!! SAY WHAT YOU WANT SOCIALIST_FROM_CHICAGO, BUT ONLY AMERICANS GET TO VOTE (AT LEAST SO FAR)
*
Obama Hits Lowest Approval Mark

*
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/02/obama_hits_lowe.php

Mike_From_Chicago - surely you're not suggesting that our President's *reputation* is linked with the global economy, nay business practices around the world? If so this "low" esteem would have driven other countries to shun our markets/enterprise like the plague in the years in which our President was so hated. Call me crazy but I still saw plenty of low-priced, foreign-made appliances and clothing for sale in American retail outlets during those years. Admittedly that's a low yardstick, but you get the drift.

And to your point about being a xenophobe: I don't fear others, I just don't particularly care if they like our President or not. Because like 99% of Americans, I have bigger issues to deal with than whether the President/Premier/citizen of ______ (fill in the blank) *likes* our President. Again, I reiterate this is not a high school popularity contest. It's life. There will always be unpopular decisions that will not be popular. But oh well. Grow up.

"Dave: ... surely you're not suggesting that our President's *reputation* is linked with the global economy ..."

Yes, Dave, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, but not just the global economy, also global security. Leaders lead. Global leaders lead globally. Leaders lead in part by developing personal relationships, by exploiting their popularity, by persuading other leaders to follow them. Think Franklin Roosevelt during WWII. Kennedy with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Reagan w/ the fall of communism. They were able to effect positive change in large part due their force of will and personal charisma, their *reputation*, if you will.

Does a popular President, and by extension a more popular America, translate into more tractors sold overseas? Does it open up China's markets for our goods and services? Does it give us an edge when Boeing is looking to sell their latest jets? Honestly, I think it helps. It certainly doesn't hurt, does it?

The plain fact is, if the rest of the world likes and respects us, we are the safer for it.

HEY MIKEY-SOCIALIST. . . LEADERS LEAD, BUT BOWERS BOW (ooops, sorry maobower urr maobama) AND TERRORISTS TERRORIZE. WE CERTAINLY DO NEED A LEADER. GET OVER YOUR SELF-INFLICTED LEFTIE GUILT. AMERICA, WE ARE A LEADER, ARE EXCEPTIONAL, AND CONTINUALLY PICK UP THE PIECES OF OTHERS MESSES, AND SHOULD NOT BE ASHAMED TO HAVE OUR BEST INTERESTS IN MIND.

LIFE ISN'T FAIR, THE WORLD ISN'T FAIR. MOST AMERICANS DON'T WANT THE MUSHY MIDDLE OF MEDIOCRITY THAT YOU FAR LEFTIES ARE TRYING TO PUSH US TO.

Mike_from_Chicago - adding global security into the mix is too far a leap to make from this small-sample poll. Also you've switched your thesis to focus on the positive reputation of our President and its bearing on America as an exporter of goods...?

I think some of your latter arguments - e.g., Regan/Communism, Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis - give too much weight to the cult of personality surrounding the presidents in question and ignore the other, major environmental factors in play in each situation.

The bottom line for me - name-calling aside - is that it matters not what others think of me. And while I realize this is an over-simplistic analogy, it's the same general principle parents teach their children. I don't see the difference in this scenario; furthermore I do not think other countries experience the same level of navel-gazing angst when it comes to their perceived reputations (see: the French).

I don't think we'll change each others minds in this forum but thanks anyway for the comments.

Mike, you think that ANY business worldwide that needs a piece of Caterpillar equipment to mine natural resources gives a darn about president Obama or Bush. You don't understand business. You certainly don't understand China. And, Obama bowing down to other foreign leaders doesn't make him a leader now does it.

Most Islam nations would just as soon see us in ashes, but they manage to sell us oil. Ever hear that money talks and suckers walk.

Sure Obama gives good speech. But for those of you that believe that freedom and peace comes from apologizing for being America and not standing against tyrants like ArmedinaJihad in Iran. Please take another look at recent world history and tell me why we had to use force in two World Wars and countless others in order to restore peace and freedom, if a speech would have just sufficed.

IF I WRITE IN CAPS, SHOULD I BANG POTS AND PANS AT THE SAME TIME TO DROWN OUT OTHERS?

This country gets what it deserves and that is why it stood by an idiot like Bush/Cheney and tries to destroy a person like Pres Obama. people better wake up and realize that we all need to stand together as Americans for America or we will be nothing and have nothing!!!

* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | February 9, 2010 10:42 PM
.
No. If you genuinely believe that writing in caps is the same as shouting, you should clap your hands to keep Tinker Bell from dying (if you believe).

Yeah...but...but....when Bush was President we never had any terrorist snow storm attacks!

Posted by: I wanna be a Republican idiot | February 9, 2010 2:05 PM
I think you meant to say we never had any man made global warming disasters EEEEEEEERRRRGGGGH!!!!

It's slightly heartwarming to feel the love of 51 percent of the world. I wonder what it would actually take to boost that number to, say 75 or 95 percent? Of course, the world doesn't have to concern itself with impediments of the actual change process in the US. Do you think there is any awareness of what change is being sought and what it might mean to the many people in the world who depend on US productivity? Will we be able to help others with borrowed funds? Will we be able to resist efforts to "punish" us for taking stands unpopular to foreign powers? If our standard is how much we are liked, I suspect we will be increasingly selective in who we tick off. This is the proverbial "other shoe." The real test for the administration will be how far in debt to other countries it is willing to go to have the kind of change it has promised. Forget Bush's role - how far into debt will THIS administration follow the Bush administration?

What I would like to know is that what date does Obama start taking responsibility. In fairness if everything that has gone wrong since Obama took office is Bush's fault should not everything that has gone right be credited to Bush. I mean Bush was blamed for the 9/11 attack and he had been in office for nine months. When is this administration going to stand up and take responsibility for their actions. Or is team Obama going to blame everything in its first term that goes wrong on Bush. He is starting to sound like a child in the playground whining over something or the other.

What world leader wouldn't care about their image? Some of these Bushites are reeally stupid. i do care what people think about me. I try to live a life that others cansee and want to imimitate. But to have a reputattion of being injust and morally wrong is crazy. You can be powerful and caring. you can be powerful compassionate. What kind of people who care less aboutr others opinion? Obama is communal thinker. Bush was a decider. I'll takeObama anyday