Obama's got a lot in common with Bush
By Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
August 22, 2008 11:01am CST
I'm sick and tired of hearing McCain constantly being called McBush and McSame so I was pleased to see this article that shows the similarities of Obama to Bush. Now I'm going to put on my Kevlar vest and helmet while I prepare for the onslaught of the liberals here on mylot.
On the eve of the Democratic convention, consider a contrarian idea: How Barack Obama is like President Bush.
Won't back down. The Iraq War is central to the political fortunes of both. Bush's presidency will be judged by it. Obama's early opposition to it was crucial in his defeat of Hillary Clinton. At key times, Bush and Obama stubbornly followed policies that could have ended in defeat.
After the success of the invasion, it became clear that the Bush administration had no clear post-invasion strategy. Bush ignored advice that the U.S. had too few troops in Iraq and implemented destructive plans such as disbanding Iraq's army. Only last year did Bush finally yield to the urging of people like Gen. David Petraeus and Sen. John McCain to launch the military surge.
Despite the surge's obvious success, Obama clings to the position that his original opposition to it was correct. What's more, during the darkest days of Iraq, Obama formulated a troop pullout plan that would have had American soldiers retreat from the battlefield and acknowledge defeat. His plan still calls for firm timetables for withdrawals, but recently he has suggested he'd let facts on the ground influence the pullout.
Arrogance. Bush is damned by his critics as a cowboy who pursues unilateral foreign policies that alienate the rest of the world. Obama is labeled by his critics as an out-of-touch elitist. They point to his condescending remarks that small-town America bitterly clings to its guns and God. His speech to 200,000 Germans in Berlin was seen as his acting like he was president without benefit of an election.
Claims of bipartisanship. Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. He became one of the most polarizing politicians to hold the White House. Obama promises to put the bitter divisions of the past behind us and work across political lines. Yet, unlike Bill Clinton, the only successful Democratic presidential aspirant in the last quarter century and one who practiced centrist politics, Obama campaigns on a traditional liberal agenda. The record shows that, unlike McCain, Obama has never worked across the legislative aisle on an issue that could put him at any discomfort with his party.
Slow to respond. Nothing was so damaging to Bush's presidency as the federal government's belated response to the destruction Hurricane Katrina wreaked on New Orleans. Washington's bungling left everyone asking: If the government can't cope with a natural disaster, how could we be confident it could handle another terrorist attack?
Obama, not having held executive office, doesn't have a record of responding to crises. Yet, his performance on the campaign trail has raised questions about his being slow on the draw. During a Democratic presidential debate, Obama and Clinton were asked to respond to the scenario of a terrorist attack on two U.S. cities. Obama talked about an effective emergency response, good intelligence and better international relationships. He had to come back later with a better response after listening to Clinton give the right answer: retaliate. Recently, it took Obama three tries to catch up with McCain's accurate assessment of the Georgia-Russia crisis.
Inexperience. Bush came to the White House after just six years as governor of Texas. How big a factor that was in the failures of his presidency will be examined by historians for years. Obama spent eight years as a backbencher in the Illinois Legislature before his election to the U.S. Senate. By inauguration day, he will have served just under four years there. But as National Review Online noted, Obama had held his Washington post only two years and 12 days when he formed his presidential exploratory committee. He has spent the 18 months doing more campaigning than legislating.
Yes, many differences separate Obama and Bush, but as Americans pick their next president, they might want to consider the ways the Democrat seems similar to the one they've got now.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/1120744,CST-EDT-hunt22.article
3 people like this
12 responses
@soooobored (1184)
• United States
22 Aug 08
The thing that always scares me about Bush is how much he will ignore his advisors, and the professionals around him. A guy with something to prove is the scariest kind there is! And I don't see that in Obama, despite his pull out of Iraq strategy being one of his biggest campaign points, he addended (is that a word?) to say that the ground intelligence will influence the timetable.
I just don't think Obama has any kind of short man issues! And that's always been my major issue with Bush.
Interesting post!
3 people like this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
22 Aug 08
This is incredibly ridiculous. McCain voted alongside Bush 95% of the time last year, and over 90% of the time before that. He's boasted about being on the same page as Bush on all of the "transcendent issues", and says he feels no need to differentiate himself from Bush.
Show me anything close to that in Obama's voting record, and I'll consider taking this absurd claim seriously. It's nothing more than a desperate claim to project the main problem with McCain (that he will continue Bush's failed policies) onto Obama. Good luck with that.
1 person likes this
@morethanamolehill (1586)
• United States
22 Aug 08
Obama has a voting record?
And what does Bush Vote on? He has never been a Senator.
It's just like Obama saying that he was "opposed to the war from the beginning". he wasn't even in the Senate at the time. He couldn't vote on it, so he is free to say what ever he wants.
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
22 Aug 08
"Obama has a voting record?"
Yawn: http://obama.senate.gov/issues/
"And what does Bush Vote on? He has never been a Senator."
Wow, what a smart-aleck. Quit playing stupid, would you? Obviously my point is that when Bush takes a position on a bill, McCain is extremely likely to take the same position. Recent example: both Bush and McCain publicly opposed the new GI bill (which passed with vast veto-proof bipartisan support, including that of Obama, by the way). This is just one example in which McCain and Bush both opposed something that was an obvious 'yes' vote for the majority of Congress.
"It's just like Obama saying that he was "opposed to the war from the beginning". he wasn't even in the Senate at the time. He couldn't vote on it, so he is free to say what ever he wants."
Well, this time I think your ignorance is real, so I'll clue you in.
Obama spoke out publicly against the Iraq War on the day it was authorized:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
So no, he can't say whatever he wants, because he took a very obvious and clear position AT THE TIME against the invasion despite not being in the Senate at the time. I expect you not to make this false claim again, and admit that Obama has been consistent in his position on the Iraq invasion. That is, unless you don't have the intellectual honesty to do so.
1 person likes this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
22 Aug 08
I amend my response. This Senate website link is even more to-the-point concerning the infantile quip about Obama not having a voting record. Read the URL carefully:
http://obama.senate.gov/votes/
1 person likes this

@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
23 Aug 08
Actually Clarus there have been just as many threads speaking of why people support McCain as there are of people saying why they should support Obama. Those threads tend to fall by the wayside because they don't provoke debate as much as those that delve deeper into the issues than "Obama's great 'cause he wants change" and "McCain's great 'cause he's got more experience".
If you take a look you'll see no shortage of threads bashing both McCain and Obama as well as threads that debate specific issues regarding both candidates.
1 person likes this
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
23 Aug 08
Actually Clarus, since McCain is not deeply rooted in the liberal left, you can be certain he is better on all the policy issues. He doesn't have them all right, but you take what you can get. Obama Hussein's 'hope and change' dance will damage the country. That is not just an Obama problem, that is the long history of the liberal left platform.
djbtol

@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
22 Aug 08
Bush, McCain, and Obama are all three different men. Yes all three men have something in common but are for the most part different. Your discussion is intriguing though. The Obamabush is an interesting thought process. Obamites will not agree with you logic, but that is okay.
1 person likes this
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
22 Aug 08
Very interesting and astute article. So IMO all the Obamaites will have left to vote for in his promised changes is the color of his skin.
1 person likes this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
22 Aug 08
I have to agree that you made some good points. I don't agree with all of them but that's just my opinion. When you talked about experience I think most people fail to realize that it isn't how much experience you have it's how much knowledge that helps you do your job effectively. A lot of people may not know that one of the greatest presidents of all time had no real experience of any sort when it came to politics. He was never a governor nor even a senator. He also had probably one of the hardest terms in office regarding the state of the nation. I was a Clinton supporter, I had no intention of voting for another man, men have controlled the president position since the begining of this nation and we have not had a good effective president since FDR. I don't know exactly when he left office but I know it's been at least 50 some years ago, and that's sad.
There are very few people that try to debate here that do it logically. It's sad but the true. I stopped calling him McSame (well ok I actually called him McMummy) out of respect for you, but some times I get pi$$ed off because the people whining about the McSame, excluding you, call Obama offensive names. And, there has been one member that has said a number of times that hopefully someone will take Obama out. I have not seen one Obama supporter yet that has said that they hope someone kills McCain or takes him out. (this was because the vest and helmet statement)
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
23 Aug 08
I would say that Obama just wants to look good. Bush changed his mind when he got the right advice and besides he has an excuse he has to rely on his staff and he is a lot older. Obama thinks he is right from the get go. And he does not have the experience. You cannot just go into the senate on the first try. And if you are a senator, you cannot say "I want to be president!" until you have had years behind you as senator, governor, etc.
You have to get up that place by baby steps. Obama has not proved himself.
And much as I did not like the Democrats , Clinton was the best Democratic president in my lifetime. Obama is way too radical left for me.
So I hope McCain gets in.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
26 Aug 08
I'm sorry, Taskr, I know I'm one of the most guilty of calling him McBush, but it seems like a case of "If the shoe fits..."...lol! I suppose if you look hard enough you could find similarities between any two people but I'm afraid I don't find any of the things you listed here to be all that relevant. I'd say Obama is much more qualifed to be Commander-In-Chief than Bush was since Bush didn't have any foreign policy experience or knowledge whatsoever before he was selected the first time. I don't think he did any kind of community service or had any contact with people that weren't at the top and the economic and social ladder like he was. Obama has been praised for running a very good campaign so in that way he has "run something". Regarding Obama's answer about what to do in the even of a terrorist attack on U.S. cities, maybe he doesn't think "retaliate" is the FIRST thing that we should do! What if someone would have wanted to do that directly following the Oklahoma City bombing, when some reports were that it was the work of Middle Easterners?
Basically, I still think McCain would be like Bush-lite in some ways and Bush-On Steroids in others.
Annie

@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
26 Aug 08
"Obama has been praised for running a very good campaign so in that way he has "run something"."
Well if that were valid I could easily say that Bush ran two very good campaigns, both of which got him elected. In actuality, I believe it's more about campaign managers and such. Candidates make choices in who to hire, but it's the people they hire that are running the campaigns.
"Regarding Obama's answer about what to do in the even of a terrorist attack on U.S. cities, maybe he doesn't think "retaliate" is the FIRST thing that we should do! What if someone would have wanted to do that directly following the Oklahoma City bombing, when some reports were that it was the work of Middle Easterners?"
If you know who's guilty, then I don't see anything wrong with retaliating swiftly. Bush didn't retaliate against Middle Easterners after the Oklahoma City bombing because there was no evidence any were involved. Even if there were intel would have to show where they were based and who was supporting them. I'm not saying Bush has always been that patient. He bombed Aghanistan about 10 hours after the 9-11 attacks. That fact was little reported in the news and when footage was shown on Fox the whitehouse claimed the explosions were just infighting in Afghanistan that had nothing to do with the US. I wonder how many people believed that.
Elaan, you can't even address the article and a petty personal attack was the best you can muster. I'm not surprised so there's really nothing to say beyond that.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
28 Aug 08
No, BUSH didn't retaliate after the Oklahoma City bombing because Bush wasn't in office then, thank God. As far as Bush's own campaign's we know it was Karl Rove's dirty tactics along with the Swift Boat a**holes that got him his second term and we can argue until we're both blue in the face so I won't even bring up 2000.
I know many here disagree with me but Bush had the good will of most of the world after 9/11 but he squandered it. Invading Iraq was already planned before 9/11 but Bush and his buddies purposely used it to get the country and Congress to go along with it. Some people were actually convinced we'd be safer here if we invaded Iraq which is the biggest load of BS ever. We're back to worse than square one in Afghanistan because we took our eye off the ball there and put all our eggs in the Iraq basket. I don't think that would happen with an Obama/Biden Administration.
Annie
@morethanamolehill (1586)
• United States
22 Aug 08
It seems that the only way to compare Obama to Bush is to drive Bush down first.
Bush is a DIVIDER? BUSH is a divider? Bush has continually tried to reach across the aisle only to have his hand bitten time after time. He had the support of the demsters when we went into Iraq, Only to be stabbed in the back by them.
They won't even give his Supreme Court and Federal Court nominees an up/down vote. Nana Pelosi walked out of Congress three weeks ago and left business unfinished. Pelosi is a dogmatic Partisan 'vaca' who wouldn't reach across the aisle if one of her Grandchildren was ON FIRE there.
Hillary Clinton called An Active Duty General a liar to his face before he even filed his report.
These people couldn't get together and work with Republicans if their life depended on it.
And Bill Clinton was centrist?? I keep hearing that the Clinton Admin "Left us with a balanced budget." The only reason they did was because the Republicans in the House FORCED him to. But they will continue to take credit for it.

@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
23 Aug 08
It was an interesting opinion piece which is why I posted it. I don't agree with everything in there, but I really wanted to see how the democrats responded since they love to refer to McCain as McSame and would never imagine Obama had anything in common with Bush.
You're right, the Democrats in congress supported Bush's war in Iraq and then turned on him. Congress completely opposed Bill Clinton's illegal war in Yugoslavia 427-2 and yet only a handful had the balls to sue him over his illegal war. Of course you never hear about that in the media because they like to portray him as a peaceful president and Bush as a warmonger.
1 person likes this
@morethanamolehill (1586)
• United States
22 Aug 08
And Katrina was a local problem. I live in Hurricane country. I've been through Andrew, Katrina, Wilma, and a few others I can't remember right now, And am still feeling the effects of TS Fay. The federal Government is NOT a first responder. Ray Nagin had PLENTY of time to prepare and he sat on his worthless a$$. He was offered Buses by Greyhound for evacuating those that couldn't get out. He was Offered Food By the RED CROSS for those in the Stadium. He said NO. William Jefferson Hijacked an Air National Guard helicopter that was rescuing survivors and made them take him to his own house to make sure his Freezer full of cash was still on. They were both re elected. The media was to busy dragging Mark Foley thru the mud to cover Mr. Jefferson's indictment for taking 4MILLION dollars in bribes. He is STILL in office.

@Pitgull (1522)
• United States
23 Aug 08
Senator Obama was correct about the Invasion. Nice word you used.
Since when was it o.k. for us to invade countries and change their government?
Senator Obama is similar to Bush, in that he is consistent and stands by what he's said.
McCain has misconstrued ideas about "rich" and "middle-class". 5 Million dollars?!?!? Are you kidding me? What middle class family has ever touched those figures?
And 7 houses? The man has 7 houses....no wonder he doesn't know how many he has....he needs people to get back on that?
Ask me how many houses I have.
NONE!
If you want the Republican to win, you obviously do not understand what is going on in this country..

@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
23 Aug 08
"Senator Obama is similar to Bush, in that he is consistent and stands by what he's said."
Just to add to this, Obama has not always stood by what he said. He claimed he would block any attempt to give immunity to companies for illegal wiretapping and then later voted to give them immunity which is just what Bush wanted. He both went back on his word and voted in line with Bush simultaneously.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
23 Aug 08
Taskr your post is very interesting, but I would have to disagree with you one some subjects.
Arrogance:
Many people in the United States and the world consider Bush to be a Cowboy, but the only people I ever hear call Obama an "Elitist" are the far right wing conservatives. Obama has said he would be open to drilling if it would help the greater good, and he would be open to staying in Iraq longer if Petraeus said so.
Bipartisanship:
We have never seen a president as partisan as Bush, and I hope we never see another one like him again. Obama does talk to republicans, and he has voted with democrats the majority of the time because of the votes he has casted. The reason people say that McCain would be more bipartisan is because he has worked with Democrats in the past, but McCain has changed in the last 4 years. He has voted with Bush 95% of the time, and we already talked about how partisan Bush is.
Slow to respond:
We all remember Bush on 9/11, enough said. Obama does think more than most people about what he should do, instead of shoot first, ask questions later. I think that Obama will do just find in the White House, he couldn't embarrass us more than Bush has. McCain's statement about Georgia has alot of people questioning who really wrote it. McCain's top foreign policy advisor (Randy Scheunemann) works for the Georgian government, the same day that McCain made that harsh statement in support of the Georgian government, Mr. Scheunemann's company (orion Strategies) received a check for $200,000 to continue advising the government of Georgia. Georgia has sent Mr. Scheunemann's company Orion Strageties $900,000 in the last 4 years. It looks like Mr. Scheunemann is worth every dollar the Georgian government is paying him. Mr. McCain has been asked questions that he couldn't answer right away (like how many houses he owned), does that me he isn't fit to lead? NO, it isn't.
Inexperience:
I think that Bush is still considered Inexperienced, I wouldn't put him in charge of a company I owned. We have had career politicians running this country for to long, I think it would be good to see someone that hasn't made a career or running for office, and taking money from people. Can someone please explain to me what McCain has done in his 24 years in office? Besides the McCain/Feingold bill (which has been picked apart by courts, and McCain himself doesn't even support anymore), I can't think of one important thing he has done (besides making millions off of his good friend Charles Keating). I don't think this is the kind of experience we really need.
So, as you can see, there are many differences between Mr. Bush, and Mr. Obama, but thanks for the discussion.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
23 Aug 08
"Taskr your post is very interesting, but I would have to disagree with you one some subjects."
Just to clarify, I did not write this article, nor do I agree with everything stated in it. As such, disagreeing with the article is not disagreeing with me. I posted this article as food for thought and to provoke discussion.
There are many differences between Bush and Obama just as there are differences between Bush and McCain, McCain and Obama, Obama and Santa Claus, etc.
I would say the FDR was the most partisan president we've ever had. He ruled the country with an iron fist while threatening and bullying everyone who made any attempt to oppose him.
Regardless of Scheunemann, the majority of the world seems to agree with McCain on the war in Georgia. The only difference is that most of the world, including Bush and Obama stepped tentatively and let Russia walk all over them, figuratively of course. Eventually Bush, Obama, and most European nations realized that they would have to be more stern and forceful with Russia just like McCain had been from the start.
Just to clarify, Bush and Obama were much more similar in their reaction to the war in Georgia than Bush and McCain.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
23 Aug 08
"Taskr, I am sorry, I thought that you wrote this post. I think FDR and Bush are very similar men, and sadly they both ruled the country in the same way. FDR was much more sucessful than Bush has been."
That's ok, I think a lot of people got the impression I wrote it even though I included a link to the original at the end. Next time I should probably preface it with the author and source to avoid such misconceptions.
FDR was obviously more successful as he is considered to be one of our best presidents despite putting innocent American citizens into concentration camps based solely on their heritage. His economic and military successes were impressive enough to cover up his less respectable actions. Bush hasn't had much that could be called a success. He caught Sadaam, but most Americans wish we'd never gone after him.
I'm still not sure what could have been done to prevent the war in Georgia. Georgia attacked a part of their own country that attempted to secede which is not terribly unlike the civil war in the US. The only difference is that the South had no significant backing from other nations and the world kind of stepped back and let things happen. Russia's actions have been particularly despicable since they not only invaded Georgia rather than force Georgia out of Ossetia, they have also violated every agreement they've made since. They are spitting in the face of France, the UN, and the US by making agreements with no intentions of honoring them.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
23 Aug 08
Taskr, I am sorry, I thought that you wrote this post. I think FDR and Bush are very similar men, and sadly they both ruled the country in the same way. FDR was much more sucessful than Bush has been.
The world agreed with Georgia not because they were correct in what they did, it was more of a denouncing of Russia as a whole of what they want to become. Russia did what any other country, Including the United States, would do if their people were being killed. Everyone knew this was going to happen, it was just a matter of time, and no one did anything to stop it. I am not defending Russia, but this is the facts of the case.
Just to clarify, McCain supports Bush's economic policies, social policies, and foreign policies. Obama's reaction was similar to Bush's on Georgia, but that is it.











