While it's silly to compare average GDP to describe a president's economic performance1, I shouldn't have included that in my argument.
My point was that the joke of the Black Bush skit was that Bush's 2004 Mars mission was suspicious since the timing coincided with an anemic jobs report and growing worries over two growing wars.
Ambition is suspect when TRENDS are bad, and less so when trends are good.
In Bush's January 2004 SOTU, news for jobs was disappointing & flat2A, gas prices were on the rise, and war casualties3A from an elective war were in the triple digits.
In Obama's January 2015 SOTU, news for jobs are higher than expected and very positive2B, gas prices and war casualties3B are way down.
1) For instance, under that model Obama is somehow responsible for the first quarter of 2009, despite it being Bush's budget in effect.
I also agree that Obama is is no great friend of NASA, has serious issues with his increase of drone use, and is generally less than effective as President, while for, various reasons, Bush was certainly effective in getting his agenda implemented.
2A) unemployment 2003: January 9th, 2004: December jobs report: US added 1,000 jobs; headline "Payrolls disappoint again" quote "household survey showed a loss of 54,000 jobs last month... The much weaker-than-expected rise in payrolls truly confirms the cautious demeanor [of Fed Reserve officials]"
2B) unemployment 2014: January 9th, 15: December jobs report: US added 252,000 jobs; headline "2014 was America's best year of job growth since 1999" quote "American businesses are on a hiring binge... economy is on a much stronger growth track than the first four years of the recovery" household survey shows 111K job gain (238K adjusted)
3A) US war casualties, 2003: 486 in Iraq and 48 in Afghanistan = 534 total, up 1089% from 49 casualties in previous year.
3B) US war casualties, 2014: 3 in Iraq and 55 in Afghanistan = 58 total, down 55% from 128 casualties in previous year.