Not at all. I’m glad the story had a happy ending, and it speaks well of those involved. But considering the quote that drewder was replying to, this wasn’t quite as strong a counter-example as it might have been. It was still something he did for a friend and business partner. It doesn’t really tell us if Romney would spend the same public resources to find the missing daughters of complete strangers.
Yes. We are still in the early years of the problems Bush left us, but they will be significant and long lived.
If Obama did something similar when he was a senior community organiser or state senator would you criticise him for it?
Also, he didn’t just drop everything and rush to help. He also ordered all his employees to drop everything as well. It was that story that cemented my corporate douche opinion of him. Even when he has a charitable impulse, he acts like a dictatorial jackass.
Yes, the Bush presidency was a disaster, but a large part of that was because of some of the people advising him. Sure, that’s his fault for choosing them, but given a blank slate and different advisors his presidency could have been quite a bit different. The thing is, regardless of his actual policies, he was a known quantity who honestly believed he was doing the right thing. This, I think, is a large part of why he became president because his handlers were able to adjust the things they wanted to fit into that view and he’d just make them happen Romney, strikes me as someone who is much more interested in the role of being president than in doing what he really believes. That to me means that he’ll probably be more likely to make safe moves and, thus, will be uneffective.
So, to that end, Bush with a more morally guided set of advisors could have been a very effective president and, in that case, would be quite a bit better than Romney. But, obviously, Bush with the same administration would be quite a bit worse than Romney. I’d like to be a bit more optimistic and trust he’d get better advisors if he were to run again and, thus, I chose him in this poll.
Bush was polarizing, but it mostly wasn’t his fault. The fracturing of the media, and the full realization of the political polarized internet both happened mostly during his presidency. No matter who was president I still think we’d have seen the intense polarization of the country during this time. Bush’s actual policies were centrist, and when the real crunch times came the decisions were often left of center. See his SCOTUS picks or the bailouts.
Romney would be more of a uniter than Bush because he’s not quite as polarizing a figure. He bends to the situation and respects the majority opinion, as he often did as governor or MA. But when it’s crunch time he usually makes the right decision, like picking Ryan as VP. I have a lot higher expectations for Romney’s SCOTUS picks, for instance.
So I voted Romney.
Romney. I’m pretty confident that for every political view I currently hold, Romney has at one point shared that view. Bush, on the other hand has likely been consistently against my views.
I’m not a Buchanan apologist, but what did you expect him to do? By the time secession became a reality, he was as lame as a duck can get.
Back to the question at hand, I cast a vote for Romney (for the last time, I promise you) while holding my nose. Bush was the worst president in history. Romney has potential to outdo him, but at least based on his shameless flip-flopping there’s a chance he could get talked out of evil. With Bush, it was “show me the facts that support the decision that I already made”.
If Leno wants to take a week off, why don’t you fill in for him? You’re hilarious.
Funny, that’s Bachman’s husband’s motto.
Romney but only because voting for Bush causes agony in my digestive system.
Hard to say. Bush was an okay prez, so he’s got the track record. Romney certainly has the business savvy.
Coin flip.
Given the type of business that he ran, why would you consider this a good thing?
I’d move to Canada. I hear the climate will be more temperate up there pretty soon.
We would probably be stuck with Cheney and Rove working behind the scenes in both cases but I think Mitt might struggle a little against their rule. Mitt might even be forceful enough to insist on being allowed to make a decision of his own now and then, so that would be an improvement over Bush.
Bush eventually kicked Cheney out of his inner circle. Romney’s willingness to kowtow to the GOP base seems to go on endlessly.
Would Romney respect habeas corpus? I’d wager a ‘yes’ and go with him.
Plus, whatever people think of Bain Capital, at least he didn’t destroy the company, like Bush did with the company handed to him.