Eerie Similarities Between President Obama and Bush's First 100 Days

President Obama will get the ritual grade for his first 100 days in office on April 29. His first days will be compared to FDR's first 100 days. And to a lesser extent JFK's first 100 days. But comparing him to these two presidents is not a fair comparison. FDR faced the worst economic crisis in American history. JFK faced no immediate foreign or domestic crisis. President Obama falls somewhere in between the two.

The better comparison is with his predecessor President Bush. He is the president whose towering White House failures helped pave the way for Obama's win. And there's some eerie similarities in the way Bush handled his first 100 days and the way Obama is handling his.

Bush got the same intense look in his first 100 days as President Obama will get in his; and for good reason. Bush's win was deeply tainted but also historic. Millions thought then and now that he bagged the White House through fraud, deceit, manipulation, and a huge helping hand from a politically compliant High Court. Obama's win was historic and tinged with racial and ideological fears.

Though the Bush legacy is truly dreadful, it wasn't that way at the start. He got the same first 100 days pass from voters that Obama and every other president has gotten. His April 2001 poll numbers topped sixty percent. This matches Obama's April numbers. A Washington Post/ABC Poll even gave Bush high marks on his handling of the economy.

Bush did what every other new president did during his first hundred days. He used the early public goodwill to make politically favorable appointments, ink executive orders and shove through Congress programs that likely would draw fire later on, clamp a vise like grip on executive power, and cast an eye on cementing his historic legacy. Obama has done the same.

Bush introduced a $1.6 trillion tax cutting program to Congress, launched a "Faith-Based" Initiative to help local charitable groups, and a catchy named "New Freedom" Initiative to help disabled Americans. In his first address to Congress, he cast himself as the education president, talked about health care reform, and made a vague promise to tackle paying off the national debt. Obama has followed pretty much the same script.

Bush worked hard to dispel the notion that he was a foreign policy boob, topped by his widely ridiculed gaffe in not knowing the name of Pakistan's president. He quickly met or talked with dozens of foreign leaders and diplomats. That included all of the Latin American leaders. The one exception was Fidel Castro. Obama also took big campaign hits for being a foreign policy novice and has moved just as quickly to meet and talk with foreign leaders. The exception again is Fidel and brother Raul.

Bush took a stab at bipartisanship when he let stand a Clinton administration rule that would expand acres of wetlands across the United States, and ended a long running trade dispute over bananas with the European Union. He hinted that he would take seriously the Kyoto accords on climate warming, reduce the use of coal burning plants, and tighten regulation on toxic chemicals in water supplies. He reneged on every one of them. But he still paid pay lip service to them. Obama has made these issues priorities too.

Obama made one of Bush's more controversial executive orders a quick casualty. That was Bush's reinstatement of the Mexico City policy denying US aid to countries that advocate abortion as a method of family planning. Anti-abortion advocates hailed him for it. Abortion advocates hailed Obama for overturning the order.

Bush's most controversial cabinet appointment was the Bible spouting, fundamentalist John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Obama picked Eric Holder as Attorney General. This also stirred some controversy over partisanship and ideology.

Bush staunchly backed a national missile defense system in Europe. So has Obama to an extent. He called a missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland the most cost-effective and proven defense system. He tied the decision to go ahead with it directly to Iran's nuclear threat and international security concerns. Critics hotly disputed the need for the system when Bush backed it. They still dispute the need for it.

Near the close of his first 100 days Bush told an audience at the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner that the world was a dangerous place; it was us versus them. Then he paused and admitted that he wasn't really sure who the "them" was.

Bush was wildly chaired at the dinner. America's love fest with him was still in full bloom. It didn't last. FDR, JFK's and every other president's didn't last either. President Obama will do better after his first 100 days. At least, that is, better than Bush did after his.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and nationally on blogtalkradio.com

Comments

[IssuesInFocus]

For some reason I just don't get the 'similarities". I wonder what might I be overlooking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuB1bOjPjEU

[PatrickforO]

Obama hasn't been like Bush at all. He is actually doing things for the benefit of the many, not the few.

[dc2nm]

Except that they're entirely different, they're exactly the same. There is very little in common between the 2 presidents except they are the POTUS and have about the same approval rating.

It seems Earl has forgotten the past, so here is a refresher on Bush's first 100 days.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-179441

[dc2nm]

Except being completely different, they're exactly the same. Bush had no huge national crisis for the first 100 days. And there is no comparison since Bush was, as quoted from the Washington Post, "the least confident public performer of the modern presidency"

Here's a quick picture of Bush's first 100 days...in case anyone forgot.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-179441

[SpoxLogic]

Er..is there anyone else other than me who thinks the author is kinda reaching here. Read his comparisons, it makes no frikkin' sense. For example:
"Bush's win was deeply tainted but also historic. Millions thought then and now that he bagged the White House through fraud, deceit, manipulation, and a huge helping hand from a politically compliant High Court. Obama's win was historic and tinged with racial and ideological fears."
Is the author saying that Bush's win by "fraud, decit, manipulation" is on par with "tinged with racial and ideological fears". Maybe I am missing something, but I still don't see how you can equate one with the other.
As for meeting foreign leaders, when would be a good time for either to meet them Mr Hutchingson? 6 months? A year? 18-months? Just what in your mind is the cut off that makes it not seem as if either man was trying to enhance their foreign policy image?
I even read the article several times, but sorry, I still think it was a failure at proving the assumption of the headline.

[moonchild71]

Bush also bombed Iraq within his first 100 days in Feb. 2001 continuing his fathers obsession with Saddam & Iraq... You're way off base with this article.

The February Bombing of Iraq and the Bush Jr Administration
http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=768&username=[e-mail]&password=9999&publish=Y

[HaroldBeu]

It is hard to imagine how differently two presidents have operated concerning both domestic or foreign policies. I believe that Obama has demonstrated a lack of leadership on the torture issue, but hopefully the Justice Department will investigate it. Also, he and his economic team have been weak in their dealings with banks and insurance companies, unlike with say the automobile companies. But Mr. Hutchinson left out one important item. Bush defunded the Nunn-Lugar Program or the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program whose purpose was, according to its website was "to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in former Soviet Union states." It was obvious that in the beginning of his tenure, Bush cared little for terrorist threats or weapons of mass destruction. Obama cares deeply about nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons, as much as perhaps the only president who wanted to abolish them, Ronald Reagan.

[HaroldBeu]

Except for the fact that Obama has not been demonstrating strong leadership on the torture issue or the banking crisis, I can't of anything that even comes close to Bush's record. One important fact that was left out of your analysis: Bush defunded the Nunn-Lugar program

[vernonbc]

"Bush was wildly chaired at the dinner. America's love fest with him was still in full bloom."

Bush should have been 'chaired' at the dinner, chaired soundly about the head.

America never had a love fest with Bush. He didn't even get as many votes as Al Gore. He was installed by the Supreme Court, not voted into office by a large majority as Obama was. You're really stretching to find a few tenuous connections or comparisons between the two terms or the two presidencies.

[rjmiller]

Bush came into a $300bil surplus and squandered it.
Obama came into the worst economic situation in 70 years.

Bush started office during peacetime, when even the role of the military and defense industry were in question.
Obama started office with two disastrous wars.

You're points of comparison are basically opposing actions on the same subjects, something that every President does, and a ~60% popularity, something that every new President has by default (50% of voters plus 1 in 5 of opposition).

[Pupadup4oBama]

I dunno, maybe it was just me, but I didn't trust Bush from the start. I don't know how there could have been a love fest when we had how many months of being stuck in limbo thanks to the Florida recount. I seem to recall there were MANY hard feelings after that. Wasn't he also the only POTUS who was booed at his inaugural parade?

[JRsNana]

"America's love fest with him (Bush) was still in full bloom." Huh? I don't remember there EVER being a "love fest" with W. EVER. ESPECIALLY in the first 100 days.

[vernonbc]

Amen.

The difference was that the Democrats didn't go out and immediately try to sabotage Bush and everything he tried to do.

[dc2nm]

DC was a police state during his first 100 days.

[WandaBooneshaft]

Bush wasted no time in dismantling this country. He had a couple of wars to start and a banking industry to deregulate and destroy.

What were you saying about how they are similar?

[wrightthewrong]

and let's not forget Enron and the resultant devastation to California, leading to the recall of the governor. Politics ruled everything Bush did.

[Mister Wu]

Yes. Weren't they part of the gang that swindled ten billion dollars or more from the California consumers in a fabricated electricity shortage. Oh we'll never know as that money brought in Dick Cheney's secret energy taskforce and Chevon's sponsored election Governor Arnold burying the truth about that energy crisis.

[ABCD]

I am sooooo sorry - But i just had to stop reading. What I read I disagreed with ...what I didnt read...no comment!

Happy Friday, On to the next article.

[KenTao]

Our Earl is a strange one. I wonder if he even thinks he knows what he's talking about anymore. Every detail he presents here to support his argument? theory? daydream? seem to have the opposite of its intended effect. In what parallel hell dimension could one possibly equate these two presidents first days in office?

Earthlings Unite!

[KenGirard]

He is demonstrating that as long as all you get is the excutive summary (A term I love as it show exactly what seems to be wrong with so many decisions that come out of upper management. No time or desire for the details before making an 'informed' decision) then many of the actions the two administrations have taken are simular.

In a world of sound bites and 100 word summaries, they are almost the same.

An example would be "I drove through Poland. Hitler drove through Poland". Same thing, right?