And you will have me believe that you are not trying to scare potential Obama voters by the label of Bush III?

It’s only scary if you disapprove of Bush’s job performance. I approve, so it’s not scary to me.

Further, as I am actually scared by Obama’s leftist tendencies, it calms me to think he may not be smart enough (in any sense) to carry them out.

I beg do differ, but what is the point of arguing over such relativity? I mean, a man that worked his way up from a single parent childhood, no good family name to back him up (his middle name is Hussein to boot), and manages to get the presidential nomination after one term in the Senate must make you pretty stupid. Talk about playing your cards wrong.

Even you can’t deny that he managed his campaign resource rather well, and someone who knows how to manage resources in general is one of many things I am looking for in a candidate.

“If a similar disinenerested Obama continues these politics, that will be a very good thing.”

Disinterested, or realistic?

“I don’t oppose Obama because he is Bush III. I oppose Obama because I disagree with him.”

And you will have me believe that you are not trying to scare potential Obama voters by the label of Bush III?

How am I blind to subtleties. Do you think I am one of those people that looks at Obama as a coming messiah? Do you think I actually believed, even from the beginning, that Obama is above realpolitik?

I don’t think you’re stupid.

I think your emotitional support of Obama blinds you to subtleties.

I don’t mind that neither Obama nor Bush are very smart. It allows the global system to operate with less interference, which at this point may be a very good thing. We’ve had our most pro-China and pro-India policies in history under Bush. I think this has largel ybeen guided by the needs of industry. If a similar disinenerested Obama continues these politics, that will be a very good thing. [1]

I don’t oppose Obama because he is Bush III. I oppose Obama because I disagree with him. [2]

Dan McIntosh,

Interesting analogy.

The only people I have heard support Bob Barr have been liberals. I assume this is because they would tolerate a further Bushizing of the Obama administration, giving him the office while losing the popular vote because the third candidate can spoil a state.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/07/06/china-and-the-presidential-election.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/04/06/why-i-support-john-mccain.html

For me, the interesting metaphor is the election of 1912:

Obama = Woodrow Wilson (clearly a role model)

McCain = Theodore Roosevelt (McCain has called himself a TR Republican)

Barr = Eugene Debbs (libertarian or socialist, the radical alternative)

Bush = William Howard Taft

The biggest difference is that Bush is not allowed to run for reelection.

I must say, I am quite smitten by your divide and conquer approach to the current election cycle.

Before you say what divide and conquer strategy, I will point out it is obvious you are trying to deteriorate Obama’s base.

Let’s try this equation.

Dan relatively likes Bush.

Dan despises Obama.

Therefore, Obama is a repeat of Bush?

How stupid do you think we are?