The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Barack Obama is, overall, a worse President than George W. Bush

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,666 times Debate No: 11707
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




I, like most, have been watching the news recently: all of the tea partiers, all of the libs, dems, republicans, conservatives, the whole nine yards. And all I see are two sides of the political spectrum shouting that each other are wrong for x, y, and z. Words have been thrown around like socialism, Marxism, un-constitutional, fascism, un-American, so on and so forth. Those insults were directed at both sides of the aisle. Glenn Beck is saying Obama comes from a Marxist family, but then there's Ed Schultz on MSNBC calling Glenn a 'psycho talker' for x, y, and z. Tea partiers do have the right to express their opinions; it's the first amendment, I understand. But does that give them the right to call up their congressman and curse them out? Does that give them the right to go against the very democracy they claim they are trying to protect by literally whining about the officials' choices in Congress when THEY put them there to begin with? And the left-wing dems aren't doing much better. Calling someone a 'psycho-talker' is sure to put out the fire, right? All it actually does is encourage LESS togetherness and LESS bi-partisanship on both sides of the aisle. Where is the respect for a differing point of view? Where is the respect of the first amendment?

Now, why do I bring these points up? Why am I talking about the Tea-partiers when the title of the debate is talking about Barack Obama and George W. Bush, two men, who it seems, are the sources of all of this partisan rage from seemingly everywhere?

Back in Bush's term, partisanship was still strong. There are many core beliefs at the center of each party. Most would see these as Liberalism and Conservatism, two things that have been defined by literally two hundred years of elections and civil democracy. Now, these two parties have always had a way of expressing their views: whether it be slanderous campaigns in a district or campaign rallies on a national level, it is very clear: partisanship was the way to go. Sure, candidates talk about 'incorporating the other party' and 'voting on both sides of the aisle', but in the end, who do they listen and cater too? Their own party. The party that was the main reason they were elected into their role, whether it be district official or President. But that is where the main issue that people have really is: if said person is a democrat and the president is a republican, then they will tend to not agree with mostly anything the president is doing. Same goes if it's a democratic president, like Obama, and its Republicans who don't necessarily agree with that President. That dislike only increases if the President has a filibuster-proof majority in the congress, because that normally means that the President can do mostly whatever they want, if only it stays within the approval of their beloved party. But where does that leave the other party? The party who's candidate was defeated in the election? It leaves them in a place that they might not like too much. Nevertheless, they go along with flow, right? I mean, majority rules?

Not necessarily.

We've learned in the past few months since Obama was elected that, lo and behold, people are angry. They disagree with what the administration is doing and what their goals for the country are and will vehemently oppose it until it is either changed - in the mind of the believer or the next president.

But my point is, why is there so much complaint now, after everything that happened in the previous administration?

Obama's no saint; I'm not one of the people saying that Obama is flawless and Bush was completely incompetent. I believe that both have their good points and bad, but I am resolved that Obama is a BETTER President overall then George W. Bush. Bush left Obama (and our children) with a great mess to clean up: two wars, one of which had nothing to do with 9/11 and another that has been completely overshadowed in the wake of the one that had nothing to do with Bin Laden, completely obliterated/annihilated/destroyed the federal surplus by the second year of his presidency (, mismanaged the greatest natural disaster in the United States in recent history (A.K.A. Hurricane Katrina), tainted all of our relationships with out allies, worsened our dependency on foreign oil to the point of a drug-like addiction, and much, much more that I'll elaborate on later. I'm simply stating the things I believe he did to start the argument; I'll show you my facts when the debate starts. But what I really want to know is: how is Obama worse?

That is what I want my opponent to tell me.

I am eagerly awaiting a my opponent's response, if he chooses to accept.

Thank you.


Making a fair comparison between Presidents Bush and Obama is difficult because we don't know how Obama's tenure will pan out. We also don't know how history will view the Bush presidency. If Iraq turns out to have planted the seed of democracy in the Muslim world, then Bush will be credited with a tremendous achievement. Con offered no solution to the problem of making a fair comparison so soon. I think the only resolution of the problem is to only consider issues for which the evidence at this time is reasonably conclusive.

1. Obama ran and was elected upon the promise of a new era in government built upon transparency. That was without question a lie. Nothing has been more characteristic of the Obama Administration than backroom deals. In the health care debate the Administration negotiated payoffs to Nebraska, Louisiana, Vermont, Connecticut, and Montana. He made secret deals with labor unions whereby they have received pension bailouts and special health benefits at public expense. He won't talk to epublicans. Obama said he wasn't going to do that, and nothing has prevented him from keeping his promise other than his putting leftist ideology ahead of transparency.

Bush didn't promise a new era of transparency, but he was by every measure more transparent than Obama. You may not like Bush policies, but there were few secrets about what he was going to do.

2. Obama ran and was elected upon the promise of bipartisanship. He explicitly promised not to use reconciliation as a mechanism to jam through legislation on a strictly partisan basis. This was another enormous lie. Obama ran as a leftist, to be sue, but he offered voters the assurance that there was no danger from his radical ideas because he would agree to requiring Republican support. Nothing prevented him from getting true consensus, he simply made an outrageous lie. Bush, by contrast, actually achieved true bipartisanship in passing the Medicare prescription drug program and, working with Senator Kennedy, key education legislation. Obama's concept of bipartisanship is that he gets to decide what is acceptable to Republicans, then Republicans are supposed to accept it. Clinton demonstrated how true bipartisanship operates, working successful with Gingrich on many accomplishments. People expected that from Obama, but Obama lied.

3. The Obama Administration has proved itself incompetent up and down the line. With no executive experience, Obama has bungled everything from closing GITMO to bringing terrorists to trial to managing the recent oil spill. The huge Stimulus Bill was promised to keep unemployment below 8.5% and to create millions of new jobs. The money was frittered away without accomplishing anything. I'm sure Obama wanted it to work, it was a case of pure incompetence. In a recovery, 70% of new jobs are traditionally created by small business, but Obama cut off small business. Instead, the only category of workers to post gains during the severe recession was government.

Bush is blamed for mismanaging Katrina, but his error was delaying a mere four days while the Democrats in charge of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana claimed local authority and resisted Federal efforts. After the total incompetence of the Democrats in charge was demonstrated, Bush overruled them. Bush's error was attempting to honor states rights. Obama has bumbled over the oil spill for 45 days, not visiting the site for 17 days and referring pleas for critical assistance from Governor Jindal to committees to study. After two weeks delay, permission to build berms to protect marshes have been approved for only 6 of the 24 cited locations. Bush's failure on Katrina was acute, Obama's is chronic.

4. Con asked, "why is there so much complaint now, after everything that happened in the previous administration?" The answer is that it is because Obama's promises of transparency and bipartisanship were the biggest lies in modern politics. If Obama had honestly promised a hard-left agenda pushed through with Chicago-style threats and backroom deals, he wouldn't have been elected. To some lying is a perfectly acceptable way to install a Leftist agenda, but most people expected what Obama promised. With Bush, everyone knew what they were getting. That made the Left unhappy, but the public recognized it as a fair deal. The current outrage is unprecedented because Obama's campaign lies are unprecedented.

Critics claimed that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, but in fact Bush believed Saddam had WMDs, as did President Clinton and the intelligence agencies of the U.K., France, Germany, and Russia. Saddam perpetuated the fraud of his having WMDs. Bush invited journalist Carl Bernstein, who exposed Watergate, to interview all the Administration's officials and to document the steps leading up to the decision. That openness is in stark contrast to Obama's secret dealings.

5. Obama has set the country on a path to fiscal destruction. It is plausible to blame Bush for a year or two of increased deficits related to recovery from the housing collapse, although on three separate occasions Democrats rebuffed Bush attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie, and those agencies were at the heart of the collapse. However, Obama predicts massive deficits for eight years. The method is to get enough voters addicted to government goodies so that they will refuse to act responsibly until ultimate collapse. Greece shows how it works; there were riots when the government proposed increasing the retirement age from 53 to 55 in response to their impending meltdown. Obama's naive ideology is such that he believes that taxing the wealthy will solve the problem, but he plans spending such that taking every penny from the rich wouldn't cover it.

I didn't like Bush's deficit spending, but it was nothing compared to Obama. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost about $100 billion a year, combined, and should have been paid for, but it was peanuts compared to Obama.

6. Bush increased drilling to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Obama has cut drilling, which means more imports. Obama's cap and trade legislation would drive heavy industry out of the U.S. to China and India. We are exporting our coal to China, where it provides energy for the steel they sell back to us. It doesn't help the environment, it just hurts us.

Obama is the worse president because of his egregious lies about transparency and bipartisanship, his total financial irresponsibility leading us to financial collapse, his unthinking devotion to leftist ideology, and his administrative incompetence. He has staffed his Administration with political hacks and ideologues, and that is destroying the nation. Bush made errors, but he was honest and competent, and he as able to work with opponents, unlike Obama.
Debate Round No. 1


Railsguardian forfeited this round.


My opponent instigated the debate as Con, made a rambling perfunctory opening statement, then forfeited the first round. Since he has been on the site recently, it would be nice if he would say if he intends to return to the debate. For now I will suppose that he intends to return, so I will address has opening remarks. Con's remarks are quoted.

7. "Tea partiers do have the right to express their opinions; it's the first amendment, I understand. But does that give them the right to call up their congressman and curse them out?"

Of course it gives them the right. It is rude and ill-advised, but it is well within First Amendment rights. However, Con's assertion that Tea Partiers characteristically do such things is false. In all the instances of violence at rallies since Obama took office, not one was instigated by a Tea Partier. Violence was all by SEIU thugs and other opponents of the peaceful Tea Party movement. The signs portraying Obama as Hitler were the work of LaRouchites, a leftist off-shoot of the Democrats. They put their website on some of the signs and sell the signs on their website. The charges that Tea Partiers used racist slurs against Congressman are supported by any evidence, despite there being hundred of cell phone videos at the rally and a $100,000 reward for an incriminating video. Obama is not responsible for the actions of his errant supporters, but it is unfair to blame opponents for a breakdown in civil behavior. Signs saying "Kill Bush" were common during the Bush Administration, but the liberal press didn't bother reporting them.

8. "Does that give them the right to go against the very democracy they claim they are trying to protect by literally whining about the officials' choices in Congress when THEY put them there to begin with?"

It is absolutely the right of citizens to complain about elected officials. Opponents of George Bush had no obligation to quietly support everything he wanted. Prior supporters of Obama have a right to feel betrayed because he lied about transparency and bipartisanship. Some say that all politicians lie, but there all small lies and big lies. For example, Obama said he would close GITMO, but he has broken that promise an now there is little chance he will ever honor it. However, at the time Obama made the promise he did not understand what was involved. The issues are so complex, that is understandable, and perhaps partially excusable. However, nothing whatsoever stopped Obama from fulfilling his promises of transparency and bipartisanship. He simply lied to win the election, and that is lie too massive to excuse.

9. "Bush left Obama (and our children) with a great mess to clean up: two wars, one of which had nothing to do with 9/11 and another that has been completely overshadowed in the wake of the one that had nothing to do with Bin Laden, completely obliterated/annihilated/destroyed the federal surplus by the second year of his presidency"

A recession began in the last year of the Clinton Administration, and it was brought on by he collapse of the dot com bubble, not Bush's fault. In 2000 the Senate was evenly split and Republicans had a very narrow margin in the House, so the surplus was "obliterated/annihilated/destroyed" largely through bipartisan effort. The Enron collapse, a sign of lax enforcement, was during the Clinton Administration; Enron execs were prosecuted under Bush. The major spending legislation in the early Bush years was the prescription drug extension to Medicare, which was bipartisan.

Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that set up the recent financial disaster was accomplished under Clinton in 1999, but it was a true bipartisan effort. "The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90�€"8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362�€"57 (15 not voting)."

By 2006 Democrats had solid control of Congress, so any legislation that set up financial disaster was from then on a product of Democrats. Most important was the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was run throughout by Clinton-era Democrats. The Democrats in control set a policy of buying all the bad loans brought to the market, on the grounds that it helped low-income people achieve home ownership. On three separate occasion, starting in 2003, Bush went to Congress demanding reform of these disastrous policies, and on each occasion reform was blocked by Democrats.

10. I addressed the wars in R1 (4). Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were initially authorized by Congress on partisan basis, and the Democratic-run Congress has continued to approve funding every year since 2006. The wars cost about $100 billion per year, which is peanuts compared to Obama's $1.5 trillion yearly deficit, projected by the Administration to be near $1 trillion eight years hence.

11. "mismanaged the greatest natural disaster in the United States in recent history (A.K.A. Hurricane Katrina)"

Polls show 62% of the voters disapproved of Bush's management of Katrina, while 69% now disapprove of Obama's management of the BP oil spill. I commented further in R1.

12. "tainted all of our relationships with out allies"

Obama believes that the key to good relations with allies is to ask the to do very little, pay in lots of money (as to bail out Greece), and continually apologize for the United States. Has this worked? He has achieved no sanctions against Iran or North Korea, who now know he will never do anything, and they act accordingly. He has destroyed relations with Israel, the only democracy in the region. By contrast, Iran, North Korea, and China make no effort whatsoever to apologize, contribute, or cooperate. Yet they are succeeding in their foreign policy goals while Obama fails. All of foreign policy starts with winning respect, and Obama has lost that. Bush had respect from our adversaries, who needed to worry about effective retaliation. No more.

It is certainly possible that Obama will change course and redeem his Administration. I hope he does that and becomes a great president. As of now, he has been the worst president since Jimmy Carter and is in the running for being the worst president of all times.

The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 2


Railsguardian forfeited this round.


If the idea is to forfeit, why propose a four round debate? Bad conduct, no arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


Railsguardian forfeited this round.


Con opened with some rambling comments, then forfeited every round of the debate. Forfeiting is bad conduct. Con's sole reference was to Bush running a deficit, but the recession started under Clinton and Obama has increased deficits by at least a factor of five and plans to run them at that level for eight years.

People may not like Bush policies, but voters knew what they were getting. Obama was elected on his promises to govern openly and with bipartisan government. Nothing stopping Obama from living up to his promises, but he immediately started backroom deals and single party rule. Obama promised never to use reconciliation, but used it when he felt it expedient. It is now clear that the Obama Administration is also incompetent. He pushed through a massive stimulus package that created almost no jobs, and he has shown no competence in handling the oil spill.

The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ProHobo 7 years ago
Too bad it didn't go the distance...Pro was cooked him good.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
kronosq, Read the first paragraph of my R1 argument.
Posted by kronosq 7 years ago
Until (if) we have completed eight years of Obama, I don't think it's fair to compare the two presidencies.
Having this argument now is like watching one movie all the way through, then watching twenty minutes of another, then debating which was better.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Mr. G, It's not shocking that politicians lie, but it matters a great deal what they are lying about and how big a lie it is.
Posted by Mr.Gompers 7 years ago
People always seem surprised when a politician turns out to be a liar.
Posted by George_Bush_Rocks 7 years ago
I want to see how this turns out but I do believe the Pro will win.
Posted by Railsguardian 7 years ago

So am I. This is going to be a GOOD debate.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
I am so happy Roy took this debate!
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
Favorite LoL quote: "worsened our dependency on foreign oil to the point of a drug-like addiction"
Posted by 9648daniel 7 years ago
I really like this debate... the problem is that I want to be on the CON side and say my arguments that Mr. george bush is worse...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yvette 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04