Would Americans still care if another president like McCain was in office?

I think in this case, it is more about what President Bush DIDN'T do, and what John McCain likely WOULDN'T have done, than it is about racism. I don't believe President Bush did anything maliciously against the nation. I don't agree with everything he did, but I consider them more as indiscretions prompted by the perilous conditions the terrortist regimes had created against the USA. I certainly don't view his actions as crimes. People say that the Obama administration is like the Bush administration on steroids, and I believe he is leading the nation into his attempted takeovers with his eyes wide open, that he is bent on forcing the USA into socialism and third-world status.

I think you would see the protests no matter who was president. WHy? Because of congress.
The President only has so much control over them. Meaning he can sign or veto bills they write. But he can't dicate what they put in the bills.
Congress has been on a HUGE spending spree for the last 12 years or so. They do not have any idea what fiscal responsibility is. Neither side. And the AMerican public is sick of it. Finally. But I guess it better to be late than never.

So here is my breakdown on it.
Obama- does not know what fiscal responsibility is so therefore can't make any real headway in stoppping congress from spending out of control.He believes in more social programs which means more tax dollars. People are tired of watching their tax dollars get wasted. Especially when we as a nation are struggling. Most of america is struggling right now. So therefore they dont want higher taxes. They can't afford it. Plus they are tired of watching their hard earned cash go to government waste. Heck even if it is not wasted. Most american are barely holding on so therefore they can NOT afford higher taxes at all. And why should they? If our government was responsible with the money we gave them and ran the gov. programs correctly they would not need the extra money. Everything would be fine.

McCain- same answer I put for Obama. He would not being doing much about the spending. Heck neither him or Obama talked about on the campaign trail about how they were going to balance the budget and pay down the national debt. Kinda really important. Yet neither show it as a big deal. That should have told us all something right there.
Hilary- same answer I put for Obama. Believes in big government which means more gov. spending and more taxes.
Ron Paul- As much as I really like the man.I even voted for him. I would have to say he would not be able to do a whole lot to control congress and their love affair with wasting our money. Not unless he was willing to put the country at a complete stand still and veto every bill that crossed his desk with wasteful spending and pork. which would be just about EVERY bill that cross his desk. In order for it to work he would need a majority of the house and congress to be fiscally responsible. ANd lets face it. They aren't. Not on either side. They just agrue over how the money is spent.....not IF it should be spent at all.

So I think no matter who got elected we would see these out crys and protests. People are fed up. They are tired of "politics" as usual. Lobbyist and Special interest groups running the show and taking our tax dollars.They want a fiscally responsible government that respects the fact that everydime they spend was someone's hard earned money. They want a balanced budget. They want the national debt paid down and real long term plan on how it is going to paid off. Not added to.
Bush and his congress really ticked people off on both sides. A lot of them. And I think you would have seen a lot more protests and outcry against him if they had not started the primary so early. It shifted the public focus off of Bush and onto who was going to replace him. A lot of people thought...well his term is almost over so I need to focus on who is going to replace him. So thanks to the primary getting started so early Bush got more of free ride than he deserved.
As for why he was not kicked out of office.....we have never kicked a president out of office. Even Nixon resigned.He was not kicked out. ANd the first thing the next president did was pardon Nixon. While I don't agree with it....congress will let a president do alot of bad things without kicking him out because they don't want the public scandel and the shame of actually firing and prosocuting a US president. They feel it would hurt us on a global scale. So therefore presidents get away with a lot. I dont' agree with it....but only congress can fire a president and they are unwiling to do it. No matter what side of the isle the president is from.
Bush did not get away scott free. He has gone down in history as the most hated president to date in our history. His approval ratings were the worst. He did the worst job. With the combined efforts of him and his congress (who were mostly democrats I might add) managed to just aboue bankrupt this country. He will have to live with that. Not easy. Future generations will not be taught good things about him. He knows that. Have you seen him really go anywhere or do anything sense he left office? No. He stays at home. WHy? No one wants him to come speak to them. No one wants him. That has got to really hurt.
I can not really feel sorry for him either. He brought it on himself. I only wish that the memebers of congress who were also responsible for this mess were actually being held just as accountable. Yet a lot of them are still sitting in their jobs....doing business as usual. Which is a bad thing.


Sorry for the long post. I will get off my soap box now.

Were you living under a rock during all the anti-Bush protests? Why can't people like you quit playing the race card.

As for Bush's "Crimes", let's take a look

"He's enacted the Patriot Act"

Yes, he did. Many people, including me, opposed that garbage. Guess what? Congress voted for it. Despite being unconstitutional it was passed by congress and signed by Bush. They couldn't/wouldn't impeach him for that crap because they'd have to impeach themselves.

"He possibly created a false-flag operation to justify going to Afghanistan (a war that is flushing millions and millions of dollars down the toilet) and Iraq for oil purposes"

I notice you used the word "possibly". Pardon me, but we don't impeach people for "possibly". We had every right to attack Afghanistan and Bush was obligated to defend this nation after 9-11. Iraq was a mistake, but again, congress voted to go to war based on the intelligence available at the time. I don't believe Bush lied to get us into that war. If it was about oil, why aren't we funneling that crap into our nation? Why are we letting Iraq keep their massive billions in surplus dollars?

"-Declaring a war on terror"

You need to study history. The US government always declares war on problems they can't fix. War on poverty, war on drugs, war on crime, war on AIDS, the list goes on. Terror was just the newest flavor and it's certainly not a crime.

"Now that Obama's in office, people are already revolting, holding tea parties, expressing their hostility towards him."

People were doing that to Bush even BEFORE he entered office because of the recounts in Florida. They insisted he stole the election despite multiple recounts which all proved he won. Watch, even now you may get someone who will argue with me because 9 years later they won't let it go.

"Could all this dislike of Obama simply be because of race?"
cripe, not another one...come on people, the race weapon is just plain weak, stop using it.

The patriot act: You are aware fo course Obama not only voted for extensions as a senator, but is now calling on congress to extend it even more?

9/11: If you believe that theory, then you must also recognize it goes much deeper than bush and recognize the fact that Obama and Bush are part of the same global cartel (the new world order).

Why now? why not now? Truth is there were massive protests going on long before this. They were IGNORED, the "end the fed" and anti T.A.R.P. rallies were pretty massive.

"President McCain? I highly doubt it. We've had a long line of white, male presidents since George Washington. What about Madam President Clinton? Maybe, but then again they weren't ready for a FEMALE president, and if people did revolt, they might be labeled SEXIST as Obama is to RACIST."
AGAIN with the "racist" thing, get off it, it's weak, as is the sexist line. can we PLEASE stop lableing candidates?

" President Ron Paul? Once again, maybe not"
The ONLY major party candidate who would have taken the country back in the direction it needs to go, he should have run as an independant and he should just get out of the republican party right now, he would have stood a much better chance.

McCain would have been no relief, things would ne the same. But hey, lets just keep voting for the same two similar parties year after year and things are BOUND to change right?

It wouldn't matter who is in office, because the president will still f- up big time. They always have.

I am pretty much in the same opinion as most posters here so I will not repeat it all. I was tired of being called a racist BEFORE the man was elected and I am heartily fed up with it now!

This is a REALLY touchy subject! Of course, there are those who will swear every single thing anyone says against President Obama is because of race while there are others who will swear race has nothing to do with any of it. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Obviously there are, always have been and always will be racists and all racists aren't white. There were people who admitted during the campaign that they were basing their vote on race and there were surely others who wouldn't admit that to a pollster. Given the results of the election, clearly these people were in the minority.

Is it a legitimate question to ask if all this "birther" nonsense would be going on if, for instance, the President being accused of being "illegitimate" were a white man of European descent whose mother had been American and father had been say Italian, French, Swedish and everything else were the same? That's definitely something to think about!

There's no doubt many on the right would be behaving in the same way no matter who the Democratic President was. It's not as if they "adored" President Clinton, after all...lol! However, we probably wouldn't have people like Glenn Beck accusing the President of being a racist or someone like Rush Limbaugh blaming the President for a fight amongst young teens over a seat on the bus! I'm not sure if we'd have all this furor over "Czars" even though President Bush had MORE than Obama has! I have a feeling we'll be having this conversation for at least the next 3 1/2 years!

Annie