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

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 (http://www.factcheck.org...), 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.