The Secret Life Of Obamabush

I still can't see how different Obama is from W-Bush. The belief is Bush is one of the worst presidents in history. But if Obama is following Bush almost in lock-step (especially militarily with an accent on engagement although W-Bush did maintain communications with selected nations) does it then not follow Obama is equally as bad?

Also in this equation is the expansion of off shore oil drilling (which the Americans should be doing along with restarting their nuclear program. It's nuts how political this issue has become. Environmentalists have set America on a backward path), ehnahnced bail outs and increased debt and taxes, focus on education are just some of the issues Obamabush are one and the same. If Obama is a socialist wasn't Bush?

Ah, but Obama is "smarter" you say, eh? He sees thing through a prism of long-term calculations. That means little if you're models are misguided or plain wrong. The only vision I see of Obama (if you can call it that) is the usual brand of 20th century socialist-leaning tendencies. Been there. Seen that.

Personally, I don't see Obam'a allegd superiour intellect. I think they're both smooth in their own way but I don't believe one is smarter than the other. Sometimes I wonder about the wisdom of the present administration.

There is, nonetheless, one notable difference. W-Bush was more religious while Obama is one sensitive dude willing to air out his displeasure. The religious aspect is interesting because Bush was a steadfast aly of Israel. Obama says he is but one could assert he's not commited to it.

Ok two differences. Obama likes to roll his sleeves and speak in professorial tones. Bush spoke more like he was about to pop a Coors Light. Shoot. There's a third. One is black (well, half anyway) and the other is white with Northeastern roots despite the Southern sensibility.

Let's take two controversial events that marked each administrations: Iraq and Obamacare. W-Bush, as far as I can remember, didn't publicly voice his displeasue or frustration on national TV. Bush accepted it despite being mercilessly demonized. In other words, he was wise to not say anything.

The Democrats, for their part, did take to attacking the public (on average 50%) who were against Obamacare - Pelosi and Reid calling Tea Partiers "Nazis" to cite one example. Obama on the other hand, confident in his abilities no doubt, is a little loose with his rebuttals - again, think "the police acted stupidly."

The other day I heard Obama chastise Palin for her "lack of foreign policy expertise." He's right about that. However, he's no expert himself and why is he saying silly things like that in public anyway?

That all being said, either the two of them are hastening the destruction of the United States and its Constitution or they're not. The left and right have drawn their lines as to who is worse. It's up to the so-called "centrists" or indepedents to break the tie.

One can argue they're doing (or did) better than we think given the seemingly rigid polarization of the country. Under those circumstances and with the weak powers of a president (relative to Prime Minsiter in Parliamentary politics anyway) maybe it's not erroneous to interpret things this way. Then again, hasn't America (heck, any country) always been "polarized?"