The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that 26 percent of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Obama is performing his role as president, while 44 percent Strongly Disapprove.
I think approval rating polls are rarely interesting (exception: Andy Griffith’s approval rating is down 25 points), but it provides fodder for today’s hypothetical question:
Assuming you disapprove of Obama’s performance, would you be willing to replace Obama with one of the two remaining Democratic Presidents—Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton? Set aside all of the Constitutional hurdles and consider which man you’d prefer to finish out this current term: Carter, Clinton, or Obama?
September 8th, 2010 | 3:06 pm
Bill Clinton. Definitely.
I may have had my moral issues with the man, but at least he understood how to promote a strong economy: by staying out of its way.
September 8th, 2010 | 3:14 pm
I kinda agree with drogah, but Clinton’s such a master snake-oil salesman, I’d be afraid he’d give the Dems an edge in the next election.
September 8th, 2010 | 3:30 pm
No contest: Slick Willie
September 8th, 2010 | 4:15 pm
Without question- Bill Clinton.
September 8th, 2010 | 4:33 pm
Definitely Clinton. Not only did he have a better sense of the president’s role in economics, as Drogah notes, but he tended to find ways to keep himself occupied that was far less costly to the taxpayers. His idea of a “stimulus package” was a chunky intern.
September 8th, 2010 | 4:44 pm
I’d take Jimmy Carter because he was only incompetent. Both Clinton and Obama are evil. They are not incompetent, but both our country and our freedoms would be saver if they were.
September 8th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
Couldn’t Bill Clinton just provide a little helpful advice? I suppose things can never be that simple or direct when it comes to politics.
September 8th, 2010 | 5:35 pm
I’d keep Obama for the next two years: the worse, the better. If things continue in this direction, the Democrats will be out of power for the next forty years.
September 8th, 2010 | 6:21 pm
I’ll hold my nose and vote Clinton.
Carter was dangerous because he was a leftist doctrinaire without the sense to keep himself and the country out of trouble. And he’s demonstrably worse now than when he was in the Oval Office.
Obama is dangerous because he’s smart and a doctrinaire left radical who is so bent on doing the left-radical thing that he won’t listen either to reason or to the people.
Clinton was savvy, and though personally disgusting, at least could respond to feedback from the “system” and the people. He did tell as many lies as Obama, but they were mostly about himself, not as much about policy matters.
September 8th, 2010 | 7:33 pm
I’d vote to leave the office vacant and see if that doesn’t generally improve things.
September 8th, 2010 | 7:43 pm
Clinton. Although arguably his disinterest in foreign policy contributed to 911, he was still less of a foreign policy catastrophe than Obama is.
September 8th, 2010 | 9:42 pm
Bill in a heartbeat
September 9th, 2010 | 8:30 am
Sadly, Daniel Kirk thinks that Carter was only incompetent. There are some of us who served in uniform under him who knew how very bright but also how very mean, manipulative, self serving and dangerous that man was. It’s not Daniel’s fault. So much of the evil of his aministration is highly classified and probably should never be told.
September 9th, 2010 | 11:19 am
Clinton since he did at least value the idea of a balanced budget. He was ok at foreign policy. He was awful on social issues but that puts in the same spot as the others.
September 9th, 2010 | 1:56 pm
Clinton, but only if everyone agrees not to look into his personal life. In that regard, pretend like it’s 1960 again.
September 9th, 2010 | 10:28 pm
If you guys think that Carter, Clinton and Obama are radical leftists, you need to go read some actual radical leftists. You can start with the Socialist Worker newspaper, or the revolutionary left web forums if you want the far out ones….
September 10th, 2010 | 3:21 am
I second Bill Reichert’s motion.
September 10th, 2010 | 3:28 am
Or should I say I second Bill Reichert’s emotion?
September 10th, 2010 | 10:04 am
The problem with all republics is the question of succession. You can have a great and benevolent “philosopher king” and trustingly grant him unlimited dictatorial powers, but what happens when he dies? Who now wields that power?
Reichert’s answer is the correct one. Power to the people (literally). Only self-government (government of one’s self) has not ended in tyranny.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact