Yes. You are correct, sir. No significant nor substantive difference. The apparent differences are cosmetic only. At their core, both parties want an ever increasing control over the lives of the American people. Good point, LL. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Please don't take my post as an acceptance of your conclusion, because I significantly disagree with the conclusion that there is no "significant" difference.
I was addressing your all encompassing conclusion
by asking ....
"Would you at least say .... "No significant difference"
?"
In some respects Obaminable has accepted what are labeled as "Bush Policies" internationally, and has taken credit for the completion of tasks initiated by Bush, but not finished along the lines of the Bush Goal or Plan.
I suspect that as factually oriented historians (as opposed to re-writers of history) start publishing their works the "legacy" of Bush will look more Pro-United States than Obaminable and more clearly defined as having been consistent with the facts known at the time ... as being a consistent policy throughout his eight years with greater respect for the processes of our republic than Obaminable. I also suspect that his "legacy" will include the correct assumption underlying his decision making that in the first year of his presidency he faced the greatest crisis with respect to a direct attack on the continental U.S. (at least since Peal Harbor if one desires to include it) and implemented decisions to effectively stop a second wave of an attack, which is now being disclosed and discussed by the intelligence community at length, because a band of dumbass liberals decided to release an incomplete report for their own self-interests, as opposed to those of the United States.