Friday, August 22, 2008

MORE OF THE SAME

MORE OF THE SAME. That seems to be the Democrats only talking point these days other than McCain not knowing how many houses he and his wife has as if that amounts to a hill of beans when it comes to being President. The Democrats seem to want to paint McCain as more of the same as Bush, calling him McSame. Well if one actually looks at the picture closely they will see that Barrack Hussein Obama is more like George W. Bush than the Democrats would want to admit.

Lets start off in the early years. Both Bush and Obama went to elite schools . Obama went to Punahou School where Tuition is $16,675 for the 2008-2009 school year, not including optional and mandatory fees. Tuition charges do not cover the entire cost of the education of a student, and this "deficit" is met by the school's endowment.

Bush attended Kincaid School and Phillips Academy where tuition is not listed but we can assume that it is not cheap.

The schools are considered elite schools and only a select few can attend. So we see not much difference there.

After graduation from High School both went to Ivy League Universities. Bush to Yale and Obama to Harvard. Bush majored in history at Yale and received a Bacholors Degree. He then went to Harvard and received an MBA degree. Obama went to Columbia U. in NY and majored in political science. He then went to Harvard and received a degree in Law.

Bush joined the Air National Guard but did not see combat duty. Obama never served and never saw combat duty. No combat duty is the same.

Bush was a known boozer and Obama was a druggie. So not much difference there. Bush gave up the drink with the marriage to his wife Laura. We don’t know about Obama and his smoking dope but we know he smoked until caught in the boys room recently and gave it up for his image.

Bush worked in the oil business, started up a company , folded it to join another and then joined another company during the 84 oil crunch which was brought on by Jimmy Carters failed policies on energy.

Obama worked for one year at Business International Corporation as a researcher and then New York Public Interest Research Group which is supposedly a New York State-wide non-partisan political organization and operated by a student board. He then went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer. None amount to an actual job when it comes right down to it.

So Bush started working in the family business, formed his own, was not real successful and Obama never really had a job. Doesn’t sound too much different to me except Bush made more money doing what he did. Obama’s success came as an empire builder, building his community organization job from a staff of one to a staff of 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000. Of course the difference is that Bush’s money came from actual business and Obama’s money came from tax monies since Community Organizations are usually funded with government grants which in this case they were for the most part. Otherwise it seems that there’s not much difference when it comes to actually doing anything.

Bush ran for Congress and was defeated. Obama ran for Congress and was defeated.

Bush ran for Governor and was elected, Bush was Governor of Texas for two terms and during that time Texas saw budget surpluses and tax cuts. Obama served in the Illinois Senate from 96-04 and Illinois never saw a surplus but enjoyed tax hikes . Obama pushed for tax credits to be paid for by tax payers and Bush got tax cuts for all Texas residents. One let folks keep their money and the other took from one to give to another. So there is a difference in political achievements in that realm. Otherwise the background so far is about the same.

Bush was elected as President for two terms, oversaw taxcuts for all as he did in Texas. Obama was elected to the Senate and so far has spent the past 18 months running for President. Total time in office 143 days.

Both have been elected to National office. More of the same

Personalities are not really that much different when you look at them. Both are arrogant. Bush is arrogant according the Democrats and stubborn. Obama is arrogant according to his own writings and claims . Bush doesn’t back down from what he knows is right and Obama doesn’t back down from what he feels is good for his political career. One has the interest of the country in mind the other has self interest in mind. Therein is about the only difference in arrogance. Both are arrogant, so More of the same.

Bush had no international experience upon being elected as President. Obama has no international experience and little National experience.

Bush ran for President and was elected, Obama ran for Senate and was elected. Neither had the experience necessary for foreign policy when running for office of President. So guess the Dems want more of the same. No experience. So no difference in Bush and Obama in that regard .

Spending. Bush and Congress tried to outspend the Democrats and Obama intends to outspend both the Dems and Republicans so there is no real difference in that regard.

Difference, One cut taxes and the other promises to raise taxes. Unfortunately some don’t see the difference.

Bush has done nothing on the boarder security except talk and Obama doesn’t intend to do anything different when it comes to stopping the invasion. So no difference there. MORE OF THE SAME.

So lets see. If you want someone with no foreign policy experience in the White House, vote for Obama. He doesn’t have any and neither did Bush so it seems to be MORE OF THE SAME.

If you want someone with no economic experience then vote for Obama. He has none and Bush evidently forgot what he did have. So it would be MORE OF THE SAME.

Want an arrogant individual in the White House, then vote for Obama. 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. Seems no difference so again that will be MORE OF THE SAME.

Want someone who is slow to respond. Then vote for Obama. He seems to have trouble responding correctly on how to handle crisis situation and that was demonstrated in his debate with Clinton. 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.

Bush , or so it is claimed was slow to respond to Katrina.

So if you want someone who is slow to respond, then vote for Obama since it seems that also will be MORE OF THE SAME

Bush claimed to be a uniter, Obama claims to want to work across party lines in non-partisan ways.

. Bush 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., Obama campaigns on a traditional liberal agenda which certainly is not non-partisan and will do nothing to unite the parties. The record shows thatObama has never worked across the legislative aisle on an issue that could put him at any discomfort with his party.

So if you want more of the same division and politics as usual vote for Obama. since it seems that also will be MORE OF THE SAME.

Stubbornness:Bush is accused of being stubborn. Because he refused to back down on his stand on the Iraq War. 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.

So if you like stubbornness vote for Obama and get MORE OF THE SAME.

So the Democrats really don’t have a lot to talk about when it comes to McCain and Bush being the same. It would appear that Obama and Bush actually have more in common in sameness than McCain and Bush.

Remember, McCain criticized Bush’s plan in Iraq. He criticized spending and on and on. So it’s less of the Same with McCain and MORE OF THE SAME WITH OBAMA. Bush and Obama, seems like MORE OF THE SAME.

Now that’s talking points.

2 comments:

Brenda Bowers said...

Thank you Dallas. This was interesting. Learned much I didn't know. VOTE FOR McCAIN!!

Anonymous said...

I really enjoyed this comparison. Good to see you at work again. I was worried about you my friend.

G-hogg