McCain Provably Worse Then Bush As President

Farah got Mr. Fu thinking:  Since McCain fundamentally opposed President Bush on the few good things that Bush has done as President (tax cuts, Supreme Court appointments,  terrorist interrogations), how could he possibly be a better President?  Do we really need a Republican President that is worse than Bush?  Do we really need a Republican President that the already spineless Republican Senators (with notable exceptions like Senator Sessions) will fail to oppose when needed?

Mr. Fu wonders if giving Bush a second term was better then a one term Kerry presidency with Republican majorities in the House and Senate (which would likely have strengthened in 2006 rather than weakened).  Mr. Fu has grown weary of voting against Democrats.  He would prefer to vote for a Republican for once in a Presidential campaign in the last fifteen years or so.



  1. gasdocpol said

    I do not believe that it is possible to be worse than GW Bush who was a shiftless drifter with a drinking problem until he was 40 who was put in the White House to put a nicer face on the Neoconservative/PNAC. which has wrecked our economy and created the Iraq fiasco.

    McCain is commited to continuing the Iraq fiasco and, by his own admission, does not know much about the economy but he is a man of character and solid achievement and not the lifelong blunderer as is GW Bush.

    Fortunately Kerry was not elected in 2004 because the GOP would now be blaming the Iraq fiasco on Kerry and saying that everything would be wonderful in the world if only GW Bush had been allowed to complete the “mission”. We would now be assured of a Republican being elected..

  2. wilsonfu said

    Bush was put in the White House? Heh, while I am not crazy about Bush’s performance as President your characterization is over the top. As for wrekcing the economy and Iraq being a fiasco, why don’t you provide some numbers and facts on that. Because just saying it does not make it so.

    That the economy is in a down part of the cycle is undeniable, but it is not wrecked. Bush and the Democrats can be blamed for not pushing for the easy solutions available. Allow domestic production of oil, allow the building of refineries, and push the building of more nuclear power plants. The first two would roll back the $110+ per barrel of oil to reasonable levels. Nuclear offers the only clear future power solution on a sustainable level.

    Another factor is for the government to stop screwing with the markets by subsidizing crappy ideas, ethanol for instance, and pushing for the market to make even crappier financial decisions, like loans options. Hopefully the bank stockholders will take care of future loan issues by punishing the idiots that decided that high risk loans were a good idea. Probably the sons of the idiots that thought losing money in real estate in the 80’s was a good idea and prompting the savings and loan bail out.

    As for speculation on the results of a Kerry presidency, his getting blamed for Iraq is wishful thinking. Democrats rarely get blamed for anything negative. At least they are rarely labeled as Democrats when they are blamed, e.g., Spitzer.

  3. gasdocpol said

    I do not think that the US economy has done well under GW Bush.

    I tend to agree with you about ethanol. The govermnent allowing credit card companies to become preditors depite efforts by Dodd is an other example of how the government has acted inappropriately.

    The Iraq war was part of the neoconservative/PNAC agenda

    The members of the Project For a New American Century ( PNAC) had their agenda prepared and published before they propped up an uninformed, inexperienced, failed businessman named George W. Bush as their poster candidate.

    He had great appeal among the good ole boys and the bible thumpers who were not very likely to vote for the scowling man behind the curtain, Dick Cheney.

    George W. Bush had not been sitting around for the previous 10 years thinking about foreign policy. Rather, he was being coached on foreign policy by handlers who had to teach him that Africa was a continent and not a country.

    The stated aims of PNAC can be followed from their war plans to their hopes of global military superiority. George W. Bush was not a factor when PNAC was writing its openly published policies. But once the 2000 election was secured, PNAC members became and remain the mainstay of the Bush administration, holding virtually every major position relating to foreign policy.

    (google PNAC to read their own words) Surely you would like to know the source of the GOP agenda for the past 7 years.

    Surely you would agree with the opennig words in the website which says that the USA and the world would be better under american leadership.

    Surely you agree that a massive US military buildup was needed to establish the USA as the undisputed country in the 21st centure

    Surely you agree with Kagan’s article in August 2000 that a catastrophic catalyzing event – a new Pearl harbor (9/11 ?) was needed to expedite the PNAC agenda.

  4. wilsonfu said

    Certainly the world would be better under American leadership. Certainly a massive US military build up is a good idea, and should be accomplished quickly, along with further technological developments to assure our place in the 21st century.

    As for a catalyzing catastrophic event, 9/11 worked so well did it not? Certainly no one in America opposes hunting down and killing every terrorist organization is the world? Certainly 9/11 was an inside government job? Certainly no one in the Bush administration would ever rat out any sort of wrong doing or do anything for personal gain? Armitage and Powell would never break ranks, and Scooter Libby would never be prosecuted, right?

    Do you seriously believe that if there were any whiff of reality to any of these ideas that the Democrats would not be all over the Republicans for this?

    Do not misunderstand me, the GOP has been run for crap during the last seven years. But it is rank incompetency, arrogance, or stupidity, that has brought this about, not malice. If Bush Inc. were so bloodly smart they would never have alienated the conservative base and lost power in 2006. If they are so smart and can pull off 9/11 then they are smart enough to keep the economy rolling and not risk being turned out of office.

  5. gasdocpol said

    As a result of the Iraq invasion I do not think that the world would be very enthusiastic about following the USA.

    If you have read and understood what is said at the PNAC website and are familiar with what Bush White house insiders like O’Neill, Clarke and Wilkerson have said , it becomes very clear that the PNAC agenda came off the shelf the day GW Bush took over. Of course you will deny that the Downing Street Memo had any truth to it and that oil had anything to do with it.

    9/11 gave the Neocons the pretext they needed to invade Iraq and it made GW Bush look good for a while. The Iraq invasion benefitted Iran and Al Qaeda.

    Just because the Neocons were smart enough to fool people with 9/11 does not mean they were smart about other things.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: