RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

“What If Bush Had Done That?”

That is a question I have asked myself time and time again since Obama took office on a number of issues, including expanding the Faith Based Initiatives, or my fave, the incredibly unConstitutional “Prolonged Detention” of American Citizens, holding them in custody indefinitely without charges.

Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush - absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama
has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.


Conservatives
look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?


The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:


Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already - THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post63 Comments »

Comment by Prime Obot | 2009-10-30 18:40:59

If I may be so bold, I think it’s because of a fundamental belief on the part of a majority of the American people that this President is well-intentioned, works hard and has their backs. All the annoying stupid little things that Bush did didn’t have any resonance in the media echo chamber in the early years of his own presidency, easier — witness the fact that Bush got a lot more votes in ‘04 than he did in ‘00, even though by then the Iraq War was a disaster. It wasn’t until after Hurricane Katrina that most Americans truly concluded that Bush was an indifferent and incompetent president.

Small outposts like NQ and (of course) hardcore conservative Republicans aside, the American people have not reached such a judgement about Obama, to say the least. So these stories lack resonance. And if the Democrats manage to pass a strong health care bill this year and the economy continues to mend, they won’t acquire resonance anytime soon.

If the economy collapses again and the Dems fail in their attempts to pass this bill, though, all bets are off in terms of public perception of this president.

Comment by Ellen D | 2009-10-30 18:48:01

Or there might be another hurricane, or an international incident that Obama screws up. My bet is on international.

 

Comment by Prime Obot | 2009-10-30 18:51:43

I might add that if you actually read DailyKos, you would know that many, many progressives have been very disappointed by a lot of things Obama has (and hasn’t) done, and haven’t been shy about saying so. This notion that everything Obama does is “peachy keen” with the DailyKos crowd (of which I am one) is simply false.

Comment by Peggy Sue | 2009-10-30 20:44:11

Prime Bot said:

“. . . might add that if you actually read DailyKos, you would know that many, many progressives have been very disappointed by a lot of things Obama has (and hasn’t) done, and haven’t been shy about saying so.”

I agree. I do occasionally read the Kos and DU but there’s also a tendancy to ream out the most negative comments, do a purging rah,rah cheer for the O, followed by a “yes we can.”

Now that being said, I read an entire thread at DU the other night where the responses were all negative, where the howl was “Obama is simply another corporate shill,” and we’ve been miserably betrayed, yada, yada, yada.

My own point of view? Little late in the day to suddenly put your eyeballs in.

So, yes. What you say is true. The Progs are not happy campers. You score a point :0).

 

Comment by morris1030 | 2009-10-31 22:38:36

Re: Daily Kos,
The last time I looked, Kos comments were mostly apologetic towards Obama. And many Kosbots asked that Harry Reid should be ousted as he was responsible for this mess, etc etc.

It amazed me that they refuse to acknowledge Obama’s sellout to Big Pharma with Billy Kauzin of drug lobby, or hold him to task for absolutely NO leadership on HCR.

In fact, Obama is against the public option. Ed Schultz took him to task on MSNBC, but when Markos Moulitas of Kos was on, he grinningly said “it has to be secret to accomplish anything” and other stupid apologies for Obama’s total lack of leadership. Kossacks are still robotically in Obama’s corner even when Obama would sell his soul[he has] for 2 Republican votes. His egomania insists that he be known as a bi-partisan President.

Actually whenever I look at Kos comments, the degree of Obama worship and denial and igorance of facts is still dominant inspite of so many promises already broken to this bloc.

 
 

Comment by Onofre's arm | 2009-10-30 19:00:21

Behold! The quickly vanishing, and hopefully soon to be extinct, Obama Brown-nosed Buttkiss. This odd flightless bird magically derives all of it’s sustinence on vaporous hope and change so it never searches for more nutritious feed. And after a rapid journey through it’s G.I. tract (shit through a goose) that meal of hope and change is crapped out as words that miraculously appear on NQ’s website. Watch where you step!

 

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-30 19:06:06

majority of the American people that this President is well-intentioned, works hard and has their backs.

Majority-not any more
well-intentioned-that’s another name for the road paved to perdition
works hard-if you call off-gassing hard work
has their backs-and how many were thrown under the bus because of him?

Comment by Lana | 2009-10-30 20:17:22

has their backs-and how many were thrown under the bus because of him?

Amen, Ferd.

 
 

Comment by Ani | 2009-10-31 00:32:17

He doesn’t work hard. He is dithering. He should not get points for “working hard” when he is still in campaign mode, outsourcing crafting important policy to the likes of Pelosi and Co. (even Dems complain they get little guidance from him). If he has not yet made a decision of Afghanistan, he has no hooting business going off to play golf.

The Afghanistan situation is disgraceful — this is a policy suggestion that was well laid out for him by the prior administration. His Admin. came up with its own that was remarkably similar back in March when he vowed to carry it out. Now that the poll numbers scare him, he does not have the guts to see it through.

And Obama’s lack of attention to New Orleans has been complained about before this. These are just a couple of examples, along with his lack of transparency, and demonizing anyone who dares to criticize him.

There is a difference between romance and reality. Those who defend him to the ends of the earth are still married to the idea of him rather than the reality. This article makes valuable points about the difference in their treatment and the similar of the actions of these two presidents.

 
 

Comment by Ellen D | 2009-10-30 18:44:06

Freezing out a TV network.

Jon Stewart (after going on WAY too long about FOX) played the Campbell Brown/ Jarrett interview and asked why she didn’t tell the truth - that she didn’t think MSNBC was biased because MSNBC agreed with the White House.

Unfortunately given that he has to pander to his audience, this mild dig went unnoticed.

 

Comment by Tammy | 2009-10-30 18:48:29

Obot: Are you aware that the Government now owns/runs 30% of the economy?
With Healthcare that will rise to 48% of the economy.

Do you really want to see this country taken over by those morons in Washington? And I’m referring to BOTH parties.
This is clearly a takeover of the free market system, and people BETTER wake up!

Oh, and spare me the talk about the economy getting better. With 10% unemployment and not enough tax revenues to pay for any of these “programs” our financial system will collapse within a year.

We are BROKE. And this President/Congress is spending money we don’t have!

I don’t even give a shit about comparisons between the two Presidents. What is happening now will destroy our country.

Comment by Prime Obot | 2009-10-30 18:56:44

There is no conceivable health care bill that will have the government “running” or “owning” the health care industry. Perhaps, with a new public option, the government will administer a large new voluntary health insurance plan. Hardly the same thing. Not even close.

The free market system is in no danger whatsoever of being “taken over.” Wall Street is back to its old ways with no significant new oversight whatsoever. This is what I meant about DKos in my comment above: while folks like you castigate Obama for taking over the economy, leftists on DKos condemn him (with far more reason) for failing to institute any relevant new oversight of Wall Street, or falling to sufficiently support a truly robust public option, and so on.

Both sides can’t be right. I think the DKos criticism of this White House has a lot more valence.

Comment by Peggy Sue | 2009-10-30 21:03:15

And yet, Prime Bot, we’ve had any number of Obamatrons insisting that the new “reforms” will completely overhaul Wall Street’s way of doing business.

Hogwash!

At best, this Administration is tinkering around the edges, minipulating the stats and “hoping” the economy somehow, someway turns around. We are on a disaster course and no amount of “yes we cans” is going to magically change that.

And the health care bill? Where pray tell is the grand reform? How is this monstrosity going to reduce costs in real numbers [not by the new accounting practices that have become so fashionable], while not reducing quality and medical standards? I truly want health reform. But I want something that makes sense.

We’re being rolled, had, played for gullible suckers.

Obama has our back??? Only a rube would believe that. Or can you defend Bernake, Summers and Geithner? When we go broke [of course, for all practical purposes we already are], there is no back to defend. Just everyone rushing for the exits, trying not to get trampled to death.

 

Comment by TeakWoodKite | 2009-10-30 21:24:19

There is no conceivable health care bill that will have the government “running” or “owning” the health care industry.

Just to be polite Pbot, since you are stuck on perceptions, what one can conceive of, is a function of empirically supplied data and the imagination to make use of it.
Some were called heretics for “conceiving” the world was round. Don’t be in a “Because the world is round it blows my mind.” state of mind,mk?

If I had to take away one thing from Mrs. Wilson’s or Drumheller’s books it was always find as many angles in the room as possible with eyes open.

The current state of affairs domestically and international for United States, are precarious at best. The irony is again lost on you PBot.

 
 

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-30 19:12:35

Obot: Are you aware that the Government now owns/runs 30% of the economy?

He doesn’t get out of that long-sleeved white jacket and padded room very often, so I’d have to say the answer to your question is, “no”.

 

Comment by IndianaDem | 2009-10-30 19:48:52

“This is clearly a takeover of the free market system, and people BETTER wake up!”

How dare the government interfere with healthcare costs, astronomical prescription drug profits, health insurance price fixing, the fundamental rights of any profit-making industry to pollute the air, water, and land, Wall Street’s behind-the-scenes dealings in unbacked derivatives, the abuses of the credit card industry…

The government wouldn’t have had to intervene in the first place, if deliberate abuses and unchecked greed in an under-regulated free market economy hadn’t nearly brought down the nation and the global economy along with it.

Although I suppose that would have been a sort of free market correction that would have eventually sorted things out. There’s nothing quite like total economic apocalypse to clear out the dead wood for a fresh start.

Comment by Lana | 2009-10-30 20:20:25

You mean the free market abuses that Barney Frank et al called people racist about when they tried to address the mortgage crisis several years ago–before we had the economic meltdown brought on by these abuses?

Comment by IndianaDem | 2009-10-30 22:34:08

I keep forgetting it was Barney Franks who invented sub-prime loans, ARMs, bundling, and unregulated trading of the purely imaginary, unbacked assets that are derivatives, while people like Phil Gramm were looking out for the best interests of the American people.

 
 

Comment by Lana | 2009-10-30 20:31:41

Comment caught in spam so to paraphrase, I do believe some people tried to correct this before we got into this mess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

 
 

Comment by Senneth | 2009-10-30 21:09:38

Amen Tammy. Totally agree. Never thought I’d be a fan of Fox or Glenn Beck. Beck is the only one who will actually talk about what is really happening to our nation. And what is happening is scary. I’ll just continue to stock up on food and necessities because I think the ride will end very shortly.

 
 

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-30 18:58:14

Well, had Dubya had done anything like the things That One has done in his first few months in office, you can be sure there would have been a collective gnashing of teeth, banshee-like wails, and hand-wringing coming from the blue-grog crowd that would be loud enough to bore holes in solid wood.

But because it is their southside not-so-tough doing it, it is just okey-dokey. After all, he is such a smart man and fine orator.

LMAO. Bushbot/obamabot-a distinction lacking any substantive difference.

Comment by Prime Obot | 2009-10-30 19:33:18

As I’ve said repeatedly, Ferd, in the real world, sites like DailyKos are filled with left-wing types who don’t like or trust Obama at all, and are very aware of many of the compromises, broken promises, etc, that are listed here. Actually, neither Obama nor HRC were particularly popular choices on DKos during the 2008 primary season; neither one was considered liberal enough…

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-30 20:22:26

neither one was considered liberal enough

Number 1: I never mentioned Daily Kool-Aide, now did I? Try staying to the subject at had, which is the whining that occurred frequently under Dubya (whom, by the way, I never voted for nor supported) and the simple truth that has Bush done any of the things Odumbo has done, you guys would be in need of padded rooms.
Number 2: You wouldn’t know the real world if it were handed to you on a silver platter along with the Kool-Aide. Try sticking to demonstrable facts that don’t need links to Obumble worship sites or the voices in your miniscule cranium.
Number 3: You mental midgets aren’t content with merely being in the frying pan–no, you’ve got to get more intimately associated with the fire by jumping from said pan directly into the flames.

How’s that road to hell you’re paving with marginal intentions going, bot? (And if you don’t like me calling you bot, then change your silly-ass moniker, chester.)

Comment by Lana | 2009-10-30 20:28:53

It’s hopeless, Ferd. I’ve tried I with a number of Kool-Aide drinking friends. Try asking them how they would be reacting if Bush had done these things and they stutter and stammer and can’t answer the question. Amusing really.

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-30 20:40:36

Indeed, Lana. I have a good friend at work who really likes That One. Otherwise he is sane and a smart guy. I don’t know what this unthinking adoration is all about. I can find nothing in that empty suit of a POTUS worth a second, much less first look–and I was once a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. He’s as milquetoast as they come, a liar, and a crook.

But you’re spot on about the bots being amusing. What will be even more amusing will be the time when they are collectively thrown under the bus with the rest of the electorate and they discover that their savior was always only in it for himself.

Comment by oldmediatype | 2009-10-30 23:08:09

Ferd. always love your commentary and admire the way you coolly flick off the bots. My personality tends to run a lot hotter. Just yesterday I got tired of the all the lefty crap my “friends” post on my Facebook page and eliminated a couple of dozen of them. All are news people or former news people working inside the beltway. There is just no talking to them. Grrrrr.

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-31 12:29:27

Thank you oldmediatype.

Just yesterday I got tired of the all the lefty crap my “friends” post on my Facebook page and eliminated a couple of dozen of them.

Me, too. When I want to read comments about politics, I come here where there is intelligence. I use Facebook but not for politics as it gets ugly in a hurry.

 
 
 

Comment by elizabethrc | 2009-10-31 12:21:51

I’m waiting for that deer in the headlights look from the Daily Kos crowd and all their misguided supporters when they realize that THEY are having their rights taken away at the same time the rest of us are. They are so incredibly gullible and I think it has ever been that way for liberals. I am sorry to have been one for such a long time.

 
 

Comment by Prime Obot | 2009-10-30 21:33:21

You can call me bot, dude. This was a very polite message to me, at least by your standards, and I thank you for that.

I have to say, I don’t think anything Obama has done comes close to comparing to the way Bush and his people lied us into a catastrophic trillion dollar war, left the Afghan war half-finished, were too lazy to do anything to help New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, and on and on. One cannot, in my view, begin to compare the two. Obama is a new president and his history has yet to be written. Bush was a failed catastrophe of a president, and history will not be kind.

Comment by Mia | 2009-10-31 03:37:27

Wake up! In 2002 I could not find almost anyone complaining about Bush and his actions as he lead Americans to Irak. The consequences are obvious today. Obama presidency is going to be as bad if we do not speak up. The media started criticizing Bush in his 2nd term.We cannot wait that long. We cannot afford two disasterous presidents in a row.

 

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-31 09:00:27

Which part of I didn’t vote for Bush are failing to comprehend? But I’ll humor you as that grog you chug is strong. You can compare the two if you actually take off the blinders.

1. Both are fundamentally ignorant
2. Both are dogmatic to a fault
3. Both had armies of dittoheads who believed their leader representedwas God.

There are more less obvious similarities, too. Both are lazy, preferring the perks of office to actually doing any real work, leaving that nasty task to subordinates. Both surrounded themselves with extremists, etc. The only difference is party affiliation, which means nothing because both parties are corporate subsidiaries and skin tone.

So your little argument falls apart, once again, botley.

 
 
 

Comment by TeakWoodKite | 2009-10-30 21:54:26

in the real world

Hey PBot! Don’t look now but Spirits in the material world are coming. Hide.

Our so-called leaders speak
With words they try to jail you
The subjugate the meek
But it’s the rhetoric of failure
We are spirits in the material world

.

 
 
 

Comment by Hadrianus | 2009-10-30 18:58:29

What if Bush had flown off to Stockholm to plug a Texas bid for the Olympics? Every liberal blog head would be spinning on their skinny necks likes plates on a variety show. If that was not the smoking gun that revealed this administrations priorities, nothing was.

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-30 19:01:34

His plug in front of the IOC was That One’s first “Mission Accomplished” moment. There will be many more. The more That One makes an ass of himself, the better Bush looks.

Comment by Tammy | 2009-10-30 19:20:26

The one thing that I miss about Bush is the fact that he wasn’t on TV 24 hours a day. I prefer my Presidents to stay in their place of work and stay out of my business. And shut up.

Obama is like a reality TV Star: Balloon BO!

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-30 19:25:14

The one thing that I miss about Bush is the fact that he wasn’t on TV 24 hours a day.

So true. I am sick of seeing that panderer and hearing his stilted oratory every day. If I wanted to listen to crap like that, I would watch Countdown with Keithie Olbermunster.

Comment by TeakWoodKite | 2009-10-30 22:01:12

Obama is a new president and his history has yet to be written.

on what ever it is they write it on up there.

 

Comment by Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy | 2009-10-30 22:24:00

And when he’s not on tv, there are the commercials - for credit card relief, for mortgages, and for that damn CHIA pet thing!

It is laughable that anyone thinks this man is hardworking. One simply cannot play that much golf or basketball; or show up on tv in speeches and COMMERCIALS for tv shows, for crying out loud; or appoint 274 czars (slight exaggeration) to do one’s work, and still be “hard working.” Obama has never had to work hard in his life, and this gig is no exception.

Seriously - he makes Bush look like a heavyweight.

 
 
 
 
 

Comment by JMM | 2009-10-30 19:10:24

I always say it’s not the double standard that will kill you, it’s the triple standard that will get you. One standard for Obama, one for the republicans and one for the rest of us.

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-30 19:14:27

Slight correction–quadruple–the 4th is for the very wealthy.

 
 

Comment by JMM | 2009-10-30 19:38:14

OK ferd, I hadn’t thought of that one.

 

Comment by Onofre's arm | 2009-10-30 19:43:59

Let’s not forget the double standards regarding Michelle. She has a personal staff of 22 paid aids that earn a combined salary of $1,591,200. What if Laura Bush had done that? She had one aid, Barbara B. had one, Hillary had three, Roseline C. had one, and Jackie K. had one. Hey Michelle, can you say “Let them eat cake!”?

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-30 20:44:34

She has a personal staff of 22

In her defense, she needs that many to make her presentable to the general public. She is one particularly nasty customer who needs lots and lots of remedial training in etiquette and courtesy.

Comment by Martha Washington Collier | 2009-10-30 21:58:46

You are quite right, Ferd. Her Aids do need to be fired though. I don’t think they’re performing even the basics.

Check out this week’s gardening pictures on http://michellesmirror.blogspot.com. There’s one of those messes 0zer0 is talking about. She’s really so unattractive with that “look” she’s trying to turn into her iconic look…the boob belt over the cardigan sweater over the blouse and the broches and on and on…Please, someone tell her the truth.

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-31 09:55:16

That look (the one with the belt resembling a yoke) is just wrong on so many levels. While I could see an adolescent wearing such crap, it is not something a FLOTUS should wear in or even out of the public eye. It is wretched.

Please, someone tell her the truth.

That will never happen. She’s far too self-absrobed to take constructive criticism of any kind.

 
 
 

Comment by Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy | 2009-10-30 22:26:43

Excellent point, onofre’s arm. Thanks!

 

Comment by FLDemFem | 2009-10-31 15:24:26

And what about the military families that were supposed to be the special concern of MO?? Nada, zip, bupkis. I haven’t heard of her doing anything to help out military families, or any reference to them in the press releases they put out about the O’s everyday. If she were actually doing something that was worthwhile, such as helping military families, then I wouldn’t be so pissed about the money spent on her staff. But so far the only thing she has done is tell people to eat expensive food they can’t afford.

I live in the South, and asked around about the price of kale(I don’t like kale and don’t eat it), and what the neighbors would pay for it if it were organic. I asked if $12 a lb. was a price they would pay. After they stopped laughing, they said no, they wouldn’t pay that much for greens, no matter how organic they were.

The military families are fighting to keep their homes and meals on the table, organic is wayyyyyyyy down the list on must-haves. Perhaps she could address their problems with her huge staff. ALL of them can’t be coming up with those awful outfits!!

 
 

Comment by TeakWoodKite | 2009-10-30 19:50:41

PBot Major Pumpkin guts for brains, are you reading impared?

Small outposts like NQ

CONGRATULATIONS to LARRY JOHNSON and all of our terrific writers for placing second in “Best Political Coverage”!

. all bets are off in terms of public perception of this president

That appears to be the extent of your critical thinking skill, grounded in perceptions.
Rev. Amy points out factual examples of indiffence and lies via Josh Gerstein and you worry after a perception.

“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern.”

.

Comment by Ferd Berfle | 2009-10-30 20:24:43

Comment by Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy | 2009-10-30 22:28:28

Well done, Teak, my friend! :-)

 
 
 

Comment by getfitnow | 2009-10-30 20:15:10

I am disgusted by his attempted photo-op at Dover with 18 families of fallen soldiers.

 

Comment by Lana | 2009-10-30 20:25:59

Comment caught in spam.

 

Comment by John (from Liberal Rapture) | 2009-10-30 20:27:39

This post is absolutely correct. However, timing is everything. In W’s first years the media forever looked the other way. It was not really until the war went south, and Katrina that anyone in the media went after Bush. One simply could not find an anti-invasion voice on TV though 40-50% did oppose the invasion for months beforehand. But after 9/11 W was popular.

The important number here is 50%. Once Obama sinks below 50% in the polls the media will go on the offensive. Even getting close to 50% ratchets up the heat. I promise you it’s why there is an almost frantic attempt to keep Obama in the limelight in a positive manner. Rahm knows that once a POTUS falls into the 40s he’s in deep trouble with the media. Glowing, unbalanced reports on a disliked President do not make for good ratings.

The thing about Obama is that this eventuality will happen sooner rather than later. He’s nosedived toward 50%. If unemployment numbers do not improve soon Obama is in for it.

Comment by Nobama4me | 2009-10-30 21:12:58

“If unemployment numbers do not improve soon Obama is in for it”

John (from LR) that’s probably why the admin., through Biden and the MSM, today were touting the 600.000 jobs supposedly created or saved by the porkulus bill.

 

Comment by oowawa | 2009-10-30 21:18:03

John of Liberal Rapture–the voice of a prophet crying in the wilderness, or in this case, in the “small outposts like NQ,” warning all that if the polls do not “make strait the way of the Lord” His success as King of the World will be imperiled by the vindictive media . . .

Count me as a believer in your message. And I am very happy to hang out on this small outpost, where the elite meet.

 

Comment by Peggy Sue | 2009-10-30 21:29:49

John, if the “real” unemployment numbers were reported, Obama would already be stepping in it. In fact, if the real economic situation was truly understood, the pitchforks and torches would be out [and not simply for Halloween].

We’re in a mess. And no matter of hopey-dopey chants or “yes, we can” is going to turn it around. Obama will hit the wall. I can’t say I’ll be surprised but for the sake of the country, my family and community, the prospect doesn’t make me happy either.

And eventually, even the MSM will have to admit it. Because their asses are on the line, too.

Comment by Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy | 2009-10-30 22:35:25

As I understand it, Obama already HAS dipped below 50% in the polls: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Just to prove your point, one of many good ones, I might add.

And yes, it surely did take the MSM a while to start looking at Bush, too, so I guess it’s Obama’s turn…

Thanks, John!

 
 
 

Pingback by “have you no wisdom thus to despair?” : NO QUARTER | 2009-10-30 21:32:15

[...] Like Reverend Amy, I am not a fan of George Bush, but to his great credit, instead of holding photo ops, Bush — very quietly and without fanfare — stayed in touch with the families of those who’d died. Which shows more class, and takes more TRUE time and TRUE devotion, than being photographed with a ramrod stand and rigid salute. [...]

 

Comment by oowawa | 2009-10-30 21:40:07

Who said “If there is one thing that really scares me, it is the thought of dying before George W. Bush leaves office”? Why, that would be me. Who now says, “If there is one thing that really scares me, it is the thought of dying before Barack Hussein Obama leaves office.” Why that would be me, also. As Randy Newman wrote,

You give me reason to live,
You give me reason to live,
You give me reason to live . . .

 

Comment by oldmediatype | 2009-10-30 21:48:14

The media’s job is to find fault with the president’s 5 “Ps” — his people, his policies, his programs, his performance and the process by which work gets done in the White House. With Obama, only a 6th “P” applies — the pigmentation of his skin. It has not only shaded reporting, it has caused a virtual blackout of many stories in the mainstream media. WaPo, the Times, MSNBC and others will always cut a liberal Democrat more slack. I expect that. But as former news reporter in DC (and yeah I was a liberal democrat), the media’s bias in favor of Obama is embarrassing. Most of the media are lapdogs, not watchdogs. And it’s perilous for the country because who is going to do the hard work of investigating and revealing poor programs, policies, people, etc? Only Michelle can tell the president his feet stink. It’s the media’s job to find the smelly stuff in government. If they think they’re helping by hiding it, they couldn’t be more wrong.

 

Comment by Lana | 2009-10-30 22:15:25

the media’s bias in favor of Obama is embarrassing.

You got that right.

If they think they’re helping by hiding it, they couldn’t be more wrong.

Waiting for the day they realize that.

 

Comment by jwrjr | 2009-10-31 00:04:57

The Media have determined that their theme on the Ozero regime will be “ain’t he wonderful” and they won’t let anything like truth get in the way. Sort of like what Spike Jones, said about Television being called a “medium”. It was appropriate because it was neither rare nor well-done.

 

Comment by whoframedrudy | 2009-10-31 01:45:15

For the reasons noted in this post, O’s “approval ratings” don’t mean the same as other President’s approval numbers. See this gap between “approval” and “would you vote for Obama today?” (only 43%). The poll found only 81% of Obama voters would vote for him again.

So what’s the mindset of someone who (1) voted for Obama, (2) would not vote for him again but (3) still has a favorable impression? They see him as a well-intentioned guy who made history but just can’t do the job.

 

RSS Feed for This PostPost a Comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)