Obama, More Like Bush Than McCain?

Libre · 06-19-2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Eight years ago we had a candidate named George W Bush who promised change from the typical Washington way of doing things. He was a uniter, not a divider. He would run a moderate Administration and create bi-partisan legislation that we could all get behind. He accused his opponent (the sitting Vice President) of being a Washington insider and basically running for a third Clinton term and challenged the country to accept his new compassionate conservatism as the model moving forward.

But as it turned out, George W Bush was not really a uniter, but rather someone who wanted the country to unite around his own conservative agenda which by many counts was simply never that compassionate. His limited experience in Washington Government seemed to hinder him as much as it helped and many blame his combination of inexperience and out and out arrogance for most of the problems he and his administration has faced.

It wasn't that his policies were really at odds with American values. Americans approved of the tax cuts, but seemed disappointed that his economic policy seemed to start and end with that one move. Most Americans approve of the Justices he promoted to the Supreme Court even as many blame him for the bad feelings during the confirmation hearings. Most like the concept of No Child Left Behind, but are critical of whether or not the Federal Government has followed through on funding it. Even the Iraqi war was initially supported by the lion's share of Americans, before they felt that our "post war strategy" was wrong or simply lacking. I believe that most Americans could live with some privatization of Social Security if they trusted that George W Bush could get it done without messing it up.

The fact is that George W Bush has failed his critics largely because he has "mismanaged" things more than he has failed because his core values or beliefs were out of touch.

So the buzz on the blogosphere right now is that John McCain has a chance to use this narrative to both highlight the problematic issues of electing a "change" candidate with no history of real change and also to distance himself from George W Bush. Not that I expect John McCain to outwardly suggest that there are more similarities between George W Bush and Barack Obama than there are between George W Bush and John McCain, but I expect this will be hinted at by his campaign (as well as outwardly suggested by surrogates).

At first glance it seems entirely ridiculous to state that Barack Obama has more in common with George W Bush than John McCain. After all Obama and Bush are almost polar opposites on matters of policy. But if you accept the premise that the perceived failures of the Bush Presidency was not necessarily as much policy as it was competence, then being for lower taxes, smaller government, and a stronger national security is not inherently an albatross around your neck. But perhaps inexperience and a naive idea of how Washington really works should be?

The issue becomes redirecting the perceived failures of the Bush administration from being matters of "conservative policy" to being matters of inexperience, arrogance, and a lack of understanding of Washington politics. One of the things mentioned in Scott McClellan's book (as well as other books) was that the Bush administration "misunderestimated" how hard it was to overcome the partisanship of Washington. While Bush was able to accomplish certain things as Governor of Texas, it did not prepare him for the National scene. One might thing that if the Governor of the second largest state in the nation was unprepared for the big seat, then a guy whose main claim to fame seems to be that he has much experience as a "community organizer" would be dreadfully unprepared.

Another striking similarity between Bush and Obama is that neither really had or has a history of moderate policy. The fact that Bush is conservative and Obama is liberal really is moot when it comes to the fact that neither came into the national spotlight with a long resume of moderate policy successes. If anything, Bush had much more success and experience working with Democrats (albeit from a position of strength) in Texas than Obama has had in either the Illinois or United States Senate. I think the Bush Presidency shows that ramming partisan policies down the throats of your political opponents in no manner, shape, or form creates any form of bipartisan spirit or national unity. Barack Obama is not proposing any policy at this point in time that can even be mildly seen as bipartisan. His policies would in theory be hotly contested by both conservatives and moderates in congress.

So the question becomes. Who is really more like George W Bush? I suppose that depends on how you define him. Ronald Reagan was possibly the most successful highly thought of Presidents of our generation and was conservative almost to a fault. If you accept the premise that Bush's failures are not about being conservative then it is hard to suggest that McCain is destined to carry out the legacy of Bush's perceived failures because he too has conservative values? After all he is not inexperienced, he understands how Washington works, and he has a known history of bipartisanship. He has the three things that Bush did not. On the flip side, Obama has all three issues working against him. He is probably less experienced than Bush, seems just as naive about how Washington works, and has no track record of being bipartisan and bringing about any unity.

The bottom line to all of this is simple. In order for it to work, the American Public has to be reminded that the last President who suggested change for the sake of change was George W Bush. Had the GOP had chosen John McCain back in 2000 then we may not be in the position we are in today. Do we really want to reject John McCain a second time in favor of another inexperienced, naive, partisan politician who's main line of political dogma is "change"?

Coldheartedtruth

There is certainly very sound reasoning there.

Nerv14 · 06-19-2008, 10:41 PM

hmmm thats an interesting post you found, it is a good thing for everyone to keep in mind as the ellection nears.

Libre · 06-19-2008, 11:28 PM

Any Obama supporters here willing to give an honest response to these criticisms or would that be getting a little too close to reality for comfort?

Nerv14 · 06-20-2008, 12:31 AM

Obama could also be compared with Kennedy, who was inexperienced and elected as a new face, and he turned out to be a good president by most standards. There are so many factors in determining how a president will do that just because someone is inexperienced and partisan that doesn't at all mean that they will repeat the presidency of someoen with those same traits.

As I said, it is an interesting comparison, but when it comes to deciding if a president will do well or not, campaign mood and partisanship are only some factors. A negative for Obama but nothing that will create what his presidency has to be like.

From looking at past presidents the only trait that seems to make presidents always do well in the eyes of history is their ability to portray themselves. FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, all other traits matter and are a factor but they aren't placed in stone.

Libre · 06-20-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Obama could also be compared with Kennedy, who was inexperienced and elected as a new face, and he turned out to be a good president by most standards. There are so many factors in determining how a president will do that just because someone is inexperienced and partisan that doesn't at all mean that they will repeat the presidency of someoen with those same traits.

What was that little war Kennedy got us into called again?

Quote:

As I said, it is an interesting comparison, but when it comes to deciding if a president will do well or not, campaign mood and partisanship are only some factors. A negative for Obama but nothing that will create what his presidency has to be like.

From looking at past presidents the only trait that seems to make presidents always do well in the eyes of history is their ability to portray themselves. FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, all other traits matter and are a factor but they aren't placed in stone.

Nothing is ever set in stone. McCain could take the oath of office and then tell everyone he converted to Islam the next day.

We are simply talking about things that must be considered, but I find it funny that so far, you are the only one who has had the balls to tackle the issue. Where is the rest of the flock?

freckles · 06-20-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Obama could also be compared with Kennedy, who was inexperienced and elected as a new face, and he turned out to be a good president by most standards. There are so many factors in determining how a president will do that just because someone is inexperienced and partisan that doesn't at all mean that they will repeat the presidency of someoen with those same traits.

As I said, it is an interesting comparison, but when it comes to deciding if a president will do well or not, campaign mood and partisanship are only some factors. A negative for Obama but nothing that will create what his presidency has to be like.

From looking at past presidents the only trait that seems to make presidents always do well in the eyes of history is their ability to portray themselves. FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, all other traits matter and are a factor but they aren't placed in stone.

I've also read numerous accounts that he would have been impeached if he had lived.

Devil505 · 06-20-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libre

Any Obama supporters here willing to give an honest response to these criticisms or would that be getting a little too close to reality for comfort?

Sure...The big difference is that GW Bush has been proven to be a liar! (Obama hasn't......... because he isn't.

)

International Underwriter · 06-20-2008, 03:33 PM

What is there to tackle? Since the author has a definitive conservative viewpoint in describing what most americans want (tax cuts versus big deficit, privitize SS, etc....) and believe (I 'll be nice and say Reagan was mediocre) it doesn't surprise the points he picks and chooses.

Obama is inexperienced, but then so was Reagan and Clinton. Being a gov. doesn't really qualify for foreign policy experience. And since Mccain's foreign policy experience is in backing embezzlers like Chalaibi are we better served by someone with experience at bad judgement?

Years ago I would have given Mccain a somehwat bipartisan label but he has shed that image. His speeches pander 100% to right wingers like this author and when he bothers to show up for a senate vote the votes do as well.

I am also not sure if being a Washington insider is an advantage. Seems like the longer one is in DC the more corrupt they are. Examples such as helping Keating, paxson comm. etc.... don't help.

The author could be right and Obama could be even more divisive the Bush. But since Obama doesn't seem to have the "my way or the highway" mentality of Bush, i doubt he could do worse on that point.

Libre · 06-20-2008, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devil505

Sure...The big difference is that GW Bush has been proven to be a liar! (Obama hasn't......... because he isn't.

)

Ummm, Obama just opted out of public funding after making a promise to McCain that he would. So yes, Obama is a PROVEN liar.

So now what's your excuse for your flock leader?

Migi e! · 06-20-2008, 06:47 PM

A newly elected POTUS, or a newly elected candidate for any offfice, is a pig in a poke at best.
I can't remember any candidate that during the campaign that I thought, 'ok, this guy is the one', they have all disappointed me in one way or another. Not that I ever expected perfection, but I did always expect honesty & integrity, that the would put America & Americans first. As the years have gone by, the ones I voted for after in office for a bit, didn't look much like the one I voted for.
I will still always vote for the one I believe has views at least similar to mine, I just won't expect much out of them. Certainly not honesty & integrity any longer.
As for Obama being more like Bush, than McCain, that isn't a compliment to any of them, IMO.