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.