If they were your only choices, who would you choose to be president and why?
Ignore the question of constitutionality.
Romney.
Bush is, in my opinion, a proven failure as President.
Bush by a country mile. As long as he didn’t come with Cheney.
I think Romney is more moderate and he’d be a pretty palatable Republican in a vacuum. As a bonus, he can express ideas in English. But in terms of how they’d campaign and govern, Romney’s weaker credentials as a conservative might make it harder for him to break with the party line on some issues. In terms of the campaign Romney has run in 2012 and their overall plans, there’s not much difference.
This. Bush is the worst President in my lifetime.
I went with Romney, on the grounds that he probably wouldn’t go insane and invade a random middle east country to be named later. Domestically, they’d be a wash.
I don’t think Romney could do nearly the damage Bush jr did. Bush’s awfulness went far beyond simple politics. There is a lot of American soldiers’ and foreign civilians’ blood directly on his hands.
Looks like Romney can continue his unofficial slogan, “At least I’m better than Bush!”
Bush.
And on Inauguration Day I’d begin my efforts to have him removed from office, on the grounds that he was ineligible for election (Thanks, 22nd Amendment!).
What’s the difference?
I mean that somewhat seriously. On what policies do they differ?
We have no idea what Romney’s policies would be. I find him to be a slightly more decent person than Bush. It’s kind of a choice between a skunk and a rabid skunk though.
Well, Cheney as veep is better than a hirisute Cheney-clone an President
Well… he’s pretty much running on “Look at me, I’m not Obama” at the moment.
Tax cuts (especially for high earners and businesses), anti-abortion, fewer regulations on businesses are, at least, what he’s promising. The only differences I can see are that Bush proposed a temporary guest worker program for illegal immigrants (which didn’t pass, anyway), and Romney has promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act (which was not an issue for Bush).
Not all of that matches his previous actions as a governor, or his promises as a candidate. I wouldn’t trust Romney to follow through with his promises any more than Bush did. The big difference I see is that Romney will be someone else’s tool the way Bush was. He’ll just be a tool.
Romney. Although that’s like asking “Would you prefer your left or your right hand to be crushed with a sledgehammer?”
I’m not sure I accept that either Bush or Romney are totally malleable like that. Doesn’t really answer my question, though. Will Romney be manipulated by different people than Bush was, or by the same people now pursuing different policies?
Dubya vs. Romney. Seriously, what’s the difference?
Bush never had anything close to an original idea in his life, or the ability to critically analyze. He had to go where he was led. And in calling Romney a ‘tool’, I meant something else entirely.
I think that if Romney is elected, he will end up being the Obama of the right. He will be far more centrist than his campaign would suggest, and will be criticized for not toeing the conservative line. As far as I can tell, the mostly liberal people of Massachusetts seemed to like him as governor.
Bush, OTOH, was a complete failure as president.
Yeah, Romney. Bush was a village idiot led by the nose by Evil Incarnate, whereas Romney appears to be a fairly intelligent if charmless chameleon who blends with his surroundings. My guess is that if he were to gain the White House he would not be a flat-earth mad-dog conservative, he’d just be . . . conservative. Probably we could survive conservative. Bush, however, could easily be the most damaging and dimmest president we have ever had, in the entire history of our country. Let’s not see more of that.