Debate:Palin or Bush?

Haven't seen a debate page in a while and I've been wondering about this one for a while. Obviously the Election is well over and President Obama's already in, but around the time when Sarah-mania was at it's height, I was wondering on other people's viewpoints on this;

Who would be a better President, George W Bush or Sarah Palin?

Bush
Bush. Somewhat less of an idiot, somewhat more able to keep his crazy beliefs to himself, grew up immersed in political culture thanks to his old man so has a somewhat better sense of how things work, plugged into people who at least have a clue as to how the world works--even if they chose to run it into the ground when they had the chance. I'll take incompetent over crazy any day of the week, and Palin spoke in tongues, for fuck's sake. Bush believed in God, sure, so that makes him crazy too--but Palin WANTS the rapture...TheoryOfPractice 10:09, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

To a washed up sorry old git like myself, Palin would be shaggable if she kept her mouth shut. (Or rather, so long as she didn't talk.) While as long as you didn't get round to politics or religion then Bush would probably be someone that you could enjoy a beer or ten with. But overall I agree with ToP, "incompetent over crazy any day of the week". Генгис   10:26, 19 April 2009 (EDT)


 * For this non-yank, Dubya in a heartbeat. I think Dubya is really only feigning his overt religious nuttiness, while Palin is palpably sincere. Dubya can see which way the wind is blowing, and if the mood of the US turned against fundie Christianity then so would he, he's a pragmatist rather than a cultist. Palin on the other hand would continue to oppress the gays, abortionists and people for the American way long after it was obvious to everyone else that it was an extremely bad idea. Ideologues of whatever flavour shouldn't be in office. -- 10:56, 19 April 2009 (EDT)


 * One plus re: Palin--she's not a born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-her-mouth Yalie elitist who holds people outside of her class in disdain, from what I can tell. My college transcript is nearly as colourful as hers (...except I turned out smart) and we've both had to actually work for a living. It would be nice to have a president who wasn't wealthy...I know that Obama comes from a a more humble background than Bush--but he also made more than 2 million bucks last year, or more than 100 times as much as me (and his income was twice as high the year before...). TheoryOfPractice 11:24, 19 April 2009 (EDT)


 * For me it's Bush. Even though he's done a pretty crap job and lead the US into oil wars and dragged us Brits in with Blair as his petting boy, he does seem somewhat more capable, and with his father being a former President he had a better shot at it. As hilarious as his Bushisms were, he has to be cut a bit of slack for slips of the tongue and whatnot. Whereas Palin has just proved herself to know basically nothing and be a pretty harsh reactionary out of touch with modern America (something of a guess, I don't live there obviously). Also, I think very few people would manage to take her successfully seeing as how a lot of people want to shag her. Super Josh "crying into a flannel"  13:58, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

I would definately prefer Bush to Palin. I would certainly rather have/had neither of them. My stance on Bush has significantly changed. After years of seeing what other kinds of Republicans are out there, he looks downright sensible. I do wonder how different the Bush years would have been without Cheney. 12:34, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Bush was an idiot. That being said, he was at least something that could resemble competent (sort of). Palin...not so much. That other guy (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bush, just based on the idea of sticking with the dolt we already know rather than having to experience a whole new style o' doltishness. MDB (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bush all the way. Though he may have been a bumbling, inarticulate idiot, at least he isn't a populist demagogue. 14:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Does choosing Bush imply the inclusion of Cheney? That might be a dealbreaker. Without Cheney, Bush all the way. DickTurpis (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Palin
Palin. Colbert needs the money. -- 14:09, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

She's less dangerous. Bush was actually able to get Congress to support the wars, the tax cuts, NCLB, and all that. Who's going to let Palin tell them what to do? 14:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Palin. She's hot in a dumb-redneck-MILF kind of way... There endeth my contribution to this political debate 15:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither
I choose life.--e|m|c  [TALK] 12:01, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

You guys seem to have missed the point - Palin is actually just Bush wearing lipstick! - E.B
 * The more she speaks, the less people listen. Plus, I would never want a hockey mom to have access to nukes. "We want to withdraw from Iraq" "No, try harder. I spend my time and gas money taking you there and this is how you repay me?--Thanatos (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know. A hockey mom President might be fun: "If you Congress-kids don't shut up back there right this second, I'll turn this country around and we'll go back to being part of England!" "When I was your age, we had to get eighty votes to break a filibuster! Up hill! Both ways!" And the ever popular, "if you don't stop playing with your earmarks, you'll go blind." MDB (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No Way! Neither!
Bush or Palin? That is a choice between the worse president that this country has ever had and the most idiotic right-wing talking head out there. I would say neither, or I will have to move to Canada. Think of the horrors of Palin being president, hearing things like this at her speeches:

"Don'tcha know there, you can't push us around like this Commie China. We are going to do what we have to do, you betcha! Those there evil, socialist liberals can go to dang Cuba (or Commie China) for all I care! We also need to expedite the process of California being torn asunder from the mainland U.S. to eliminate those darn San Francisco Values, but for those of us that don't believe in geology (a branch of the notoriously liberal field of science), that is okey-dokey! We need for all Bible-believing Americans to have guns and................"

Okay, I changed my mind. Bush!! I am extremely scared now....User:Lefty