Presidential Campaign 2008: Which Candidate Would Be Least Like George W. Bush?

I don't think there are very many people left in America who really like the job that President George W. Bush is doing. I certainly don't. If you're in my camp, you should probably be voting for the candidate who, regardless of political affiliation, is least like Bush. Who is that candidate? Ron Paul. Now that would be the real change that all the other candidates are talking about.

Alternet has some pretty somber words about our next president. He or she will probably be a lot like George W. Bush.
The political calendar indicates that in one more year – on Jan. 20, 2009 – the presidency of George W. Bush will come to an end. However, the worst consequences of his disastrous reign, including the Iraq War, may be nowhere near ending.
I hope we Americans are more vigilant than that.

Considering that hardly anyone approves of Bush's performance as president, who should we elect as our new president to ensure that we don't have the same failed policies, both foreign and domestic?

Alternet narrows it down a bit.
Today’s presidential frontrunners, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, were early prominent supporters of the Iraq War and appear to have suffered little political damage for lining up behind Bush in 2002 when he was at the peak of his power.
So we clearly cannot choose the goblet that has been placed in front of them.

Thompson, Kucinich, Richardson, Biden, and Hunter are gone, so let's not consider them either. And it looks like Democrats are coalescing away from Edwards as well.

How about Giuliani? Are you kidding? He's got an itchier trigger finger than Bush!

Barak Obama? He's got a much better stance than Bush on the war in Iraq and the War on Terror, but his domestic (social welfare) policies would drive America into the ground.

Mike Huckabee? He's a bit more of a socialist than I first thought, and he thinks the war on terror is going just fine.

Mitt Romney? He likes the Guantanamo idea. In fact he'd build more. He tries to sound like Bush more than any other candidate.

That's just about everyone, right, media?

Every candidate is almost exactly like George W. Bush. Except one. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is markedly different that President Bush in both foreign and domestic policy.

Did I forget someone? Oh that's right! The guy who has bested Giuliani in nearly every Republican primary so far. What was his name again? Ron...something?

The War on Terror has been conducted beneath a penumbra of disgraceful politics. The home front economy is in a shambles. It all happened (or got much worse) under George W. Bush. Every candidate is just like George W. Bush (or worse) in either their foreign or their domestic policy (and sometimes both).

Except one.

There is only one candidate who is markedly different that President Bush on both counts. He would make a fabulous President. So when you go to that balloting station, please...

...please support Ron Paul.

Or we're in for at least four more looooooooooong years.


  1. Frank,

    I agree with most of your assessments. I strongly support Ron Paul because I believe he presents the best across-the-board platform.

    Tragically none of the other Republican candidates even seem to understand the utter disregard for blood and treasury that our current foreign policy charts. [I believe if you *really* support the troops, you take the time to study these things with humility and sincerity.] And -- as you point out -- neither do the front-running Democrats.

    However, if one of the front-running Dems like Obama or Edwards becomes their candidate and stops flirting with the idea of actual change to our foreign policy – and commits to it – [assuming Paul can't work a miracle back room deal at a brokered convention . . . pretty safe bet I'm afraid] I'll be likely to vote Dem in the Presidential election for the first time ever. Because (despite your observations about the proper role of government, etc.) with the exception of Paul none of the Republican candidates seem demonstrably more committed to fiscal responsibility than the Democratic candidates and at least with reduced military irresponsibility we could withstand whatever pork pushes through congress much, much easier.

    Regretably, the GOP party machine seems committed to painting the Paul candidacy as a one-trick-pacifist-pony when he is neither a pacifist (he's the only Republican candidate remaining who still supports our original mandate to go after bin Laden) nor one-trick. He's certainly the most conservative and fiscally responsible of the candidates the GOP has to offer.

  2. Looks like this contest will be McCain versus Hillary, the same election the media told us we would have as far back as 2005. Funny how that works out.

    McCain just said that Hillary would surrender to al Qaeda. Too bad he's lying, it would be our best move right now. It would be easier to make Osama happy than to make the neocons happy, not to mention cheaper and less bloody.

    "Hillary in '08, surrender in '09." That's a vote-getting bumper sticker. Better than "Vote for McCain's Hundred Years' War."

  3. I agree with you, Doug. If it were down to Obama vs Giuliani or McCain, I would vote for Obama.


    That is a scary thought. Interestingly these are the two WORST candidates for their respective parties. ANYONE, including Giuliani would be better than them.

    Stay tuned for a new blog entry entitled something like "Clinton vs. McCain? They are Hornswaggling Us Again."


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog