I believe that history will judge you very wrong on that analysis - so very very wrong.
I would say Clinton would be the one that sets the Bar for Standard. Lord knows he had a lot of flaws but if I had to pick one withen our life time, it would be Clinton. I also liked Reagan. another one with a lot of flaws but people seem to forget the mess he had to clean up behind Carter and I don't remember a whole lot of whining about it (but that was several years ago). As far as where Bush stands? Bush and Obama are on total differant sides of the Spectrum. The problem is they're equally balanced out on the See Saw of Substandard.
Well, I didn't personally call Obama a substandard president and that is a bit of a harsh statement, I agree. I'd have to scroll up and find the remark. I personally am not in favor of some/many of his policies he puts forth but that is to be expected as I didn't vote for him and am more conservative in my politics. I tend to be doubtful of this president but he IS trying to do his job. Substandard to me means someone isn't doing their job and slacking.
I also think that Bush was doing what he thought was best and he also was doing his job in that regard. And Clinton as well.
Not too many slackers in the white house as they all seem bent on shaping America as they see fit. Maybe they don't always do a great job---- and time will tell what people in the future will think of how Obama did. Of course, and this isn't meant to be snarky------ obama will never be allowed to fail because if he happens to do so--- it will be quickly blamed on Republicans or Bush. Obama appears untouchable as to accountability in my eyes. Down the road though, when all of us are done arguing about it, it will be interesting how the history books capture things.
"Why does mentioning that you aren't in favor of Obama's policies and are doubtful of his success make one bring up George Bush?"
I was addressing the comment that Obama is a substandard President.
I'd like to have some vague idea of what the standard is - or the context in which the statement was made. Substandard necessarily means there must be a "STANDARD". If one is going to call Obama "substandard" then I would like to know where Bush stands in that poster's opinion. That would give me some frame of reference. Where does Clinton stand?
"If Obama is substandard how would you characterize George Bush?"
"Equal or of similar value."
"Please, give me a break here! This is crazy talk - plain and simple."
One man's "crazy" is another man's perfectly rational.
I think we all agree that both Bush and Romney were sub-standard; many of us agree that Obama sits in the same category.
Looks to me like a lot us might have chosen what we considered to be "the lesser of 2 evils" when we voted.........not that we really liked the candidate, just that his beliefs/policies more closely matched ours, even if not a "perfect match".
I think that's where we run into trouble, here, a lot; the idea that everyone who doesn't view things in a certain manner is somehow as "sub-standard" as the candidates...... that couldn't be further from the truth. I said through the entire campaign that I wasn't the least impressed with Romney and disliked Ryan even more, but the fact remains that most of their conservative views more closely matched mine.
We're are individuals; there is no right or wrong; we all form our beliefs/views/opinions/feelings based on our experiences and that's what we go on. The hope is that everyone would be able to see more than one side of an issue.
Why does mentioning that you aren't in favor of Obama's policies and are doubtful of his success make one bring up George Bush? Don't get that. I've never cared for Obama as president and didn't vote for him either time he ran. What does that have to do with Bush?