Borrowing from Bush

Borrowing from Bush (Part 1)

Barack Obama was once hailed as the anti-Bush, a fantastic orator, and an original thinker. He has now proven all of these accusations wrong. In the political arena, he has exonerated himself from excellence.

Now our wondrous President, Patrick Henry wannabe extraordinaire, has insulted everyone who disagrees with him, betrayed everyone who agrees with him, and patterned his administration after his supposed rival, George W Bush. Did anyone else think it was strange how well those two got along during the transition? That’s because they’re clones.

In response to the oil disaster, President Obama recently gave a speech in which he declared himself open to any ideas that will end America’s “addiction to oil.” Doesn’t that start to make you think? Are we really addicted to oil? Well, we couldn’t survive without it. Our economy would die. Thousands of workers would be unemployed. We couldn’t visit our Grandmothers. Does that really mean we’re addicted?

Let’s say you fed your children peas. That’s all. You never fed them anything else, but you did offer them carrots and beans if they chop off their arm and leg. They never do this so you feed them peas. Then one day you say to them, “You’re addicted to peas!”

America’s dependence on oil is hardly an addiction. Most of us resent it, the way your children resent peas. We’re stuck with it, but that doesn’t mean we like it. And after years and years of despising OPEC and dreaming of a market not dependent on the fertile crescent of instability, we are no closer to achieving alternate fuels. Sure they have natural gas, but have you seen the cost to convert? Sure we have electric, but have you seen the price of those vehicles? It’s an arm and a leg!

So your comment, Mr Obama, hardly says anything about us. It says a lot more about you, and who you get your phraseology from. Your comment comes straight from Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Address, in which he said “America is addicted to oil.” At the time we let the phrase slide because he was talking about alternate fuel and domestic production. Then he went ahead and proved that he wasn’t actually interested in welcoming ideas.

It’s not that Obama’s usage of the phrase is less forgivable, it’s that after four years we’re tired of it. Obama is in the middle of telling us to come forward with our ideas to end our addiction. The Gulf oil spill was the target of dozens of offers of aid or ingenuity, all of which were summarily ignored. So why should we get all excited that you’re going to start listening to ideas now?

We’ll go on being dependent. You’ll go on saying we’re addicted. And you’ll go on borrowing from Bush, Mr Obama. Mr Bubama.



Borrowing from Bush (Part 2)

Some have thought that Obama introduced a revolution of sorts, a liberal giant to squash the small-minded conservative policies that had riddled the political landscape for eight long years of Bush.

I contend the opposite. It seems to me that beyond anything else, Obama’s goal has been to do everything Bush did and see if he can avoid sharp criticism. Here’s what I mean.

War: Remember the deep scowls Bush received for his “surge” in Iraq? One of Obama’s first moves was to create a surge in Afghanistan. The opposition party howled for years about how unjust Bush’s war on terror was, now that they inherited it, they’re just as happy to keep it going in both nations and not a word spoken in dissent about our Nobel Peace Prize winning President.

Spending: Sometimes we forget that TARP was Bush’s idea. Many people equate wild spending with liberal policies but the original two stimulus packages were harbingers of what would come. Bush set a world record for deficit spending. Any change between administrations? Haven’t noticed any. Obama has left Bush’s deficit record in the dust like Michael Phelps competing against a five-year-old. It’s all the same path.

Sequestering information: Bush’s tendency to work behind people backs where the public couldn’t scrutinize was terrifying. Then along came Obama, full of government in the sunshine, clarity, and openness. Or he was during the campaign. Then his rule began and all those bright images got put away in the back cupboards of the back rooms he makes deals in.

Stubbornness: While Georgie was in charge, he got his way, and the only other person to get his way was Dick. Together they stonewalled dissenters in such a way that they couldn’t matter. Thankfully all that changed with the coming of Obama, for whom bipartisanship means “completely agreeing with me no matter what party you’re from.”

Expanding the government/power of president: Bush was deeply hated for federalizing schools with No Child Left Behind. Also for the problems unleashed by the Patriot Act. What about his federal takeover of airline security? Right along that warpath comes Your Buddy Barack, who snatched healthcare, student loans, and likely in a few more weeks, Big Oil. Just what our Constitution says he should do.

Judges with no experience: This was the icing on the cake. One step before John Roberts, Bush tried to nominate a close political ally who was so scary looking I purged her name from my mind and refuse to look her up. He got so much flack for putting up a nominee with no judicial experience that he put her away and got a real judge. Obama pulled Elena Kagan, who only looks scary in a lovable, John Lovitz sort of way, but also has no judicial experience. For some reason there’s no problem with her.

What else would you conclude but that Obama is trying to do all the same things Bush did and get away with it. That’s a bet he’s winning quite well.

I think anyone who looks at the facts can’t escape the logic that if two men march down the same trail they’re going in the same direction. I think that both these Presidents are eye to eye, no matter how partisan politics have skewed our paradigms.

Take a Bullet for Obama

Obama is no stranger to threats. Early on after the election the FBI stopped an assassination plot. He’s a target: he’s Black; he’s pushed a very radical agenda; he’s against gun control. The man needs protection. And I contend that the best protection would come from conservatives.

You might think, “What? Surround him by the very people more likely to bump him?” Well, you’ll have to clear your head a bit. I dislike him but I’m not going to kill him. In fact, I’m making the case that the most politically expedient thing for me to do is to protect his life with all I’m worth. Why?

Think about it for a moment. The minute Barack goes down, what’s the first thing that happens? Eloquent Joe becomes President. That would be a move even many Obama fans would find unpalatable. It would be a big f.ing deal, for sure. Then the guy would have to pick a vice. You can’t trust Cheney's prodigy to say two brainy sentences together, you think he’s going to do the nation justice with his selection? Obama’s political enemies would stand together to protect him with this at stake.

But aside from the amusing, what would the fallout be from an Obama assassination? We see today here and there the racism flag waved at political dissidents for daring to disagree with a black man. It’s transparently foolish but in the emotional wake of such an event, that idea would gain ground indefinitely. If the President is assassinated, racial tensions would explode, and there are those poised to take advantage of such a situation. The blame game begins. Suddenly the trail goes: Racist >> Disagree >> Plot >> Kill. You and I and anyone else standing firmly in the “disagree” category finds themselves trapped between Racist and Plot, one step away from being killers ourselves. Blame. Politicians you cannot trust will use blame to set traps that ensure anyone who opposed him will be silent or silenced.

Now Obama goes down as a hero, the first black man to rise to the nation’s top office, and racist white men destroyed him for it. He’s a martyr, a magnificent angel who died for the people. His agenda isn’t radical anymore, it’s equity and justice and anyone who thinks otherwise can see the paragraph above. Remember how Michael Jackson went from the chairman of the Freaky Monster Society to beloved father and respected inspiration in one night? That’s all it takes, and suddenly it’s politically incorrect to say anything about him other than what a beacon of divine light he is. You think Obama receives no media criticism now, just wait until his death.

The aura of martyrdom and the upwelling of emotion resulting from it will be so magnificent that Obama’s ghost could rest assured that his agenda won’t die with him; rather it will swell. People would scramble to take his place, to pick up where he left off, to make sure his legacy would not die. This emotion will be no more than a tool of the most diabolical politicians. These devious politicians will play on sincere emotions to get their way and increase their power. Important rights will cease to have meaning, and his political adherents would be glorified.

Proponents of this administration would have very little to lose from the death of President Barack Obama except a good speaker. One wonders if the more treacherous-minded do not recognize the advantage provided by his race, youth, and charisma.

That is why I say he couldn’t do better than to have a troop of Conservatives serving as his body guards. They aren’t going to touch him. They aren’t going to let anyone else do anything to him. They have too much to lose if something goes wrong. The best thing, right now, for those who love small government and interpret the Constitution narrowly is to make sure that the current serving president lives a long and healthy life. The alternative would be disastrous.

I pray I never have to say, “I told you so.”