I understand your elaboration on deepimpact2's points, but that doesn't lessen my disagreement with them.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar...tion/na-bush18
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5800960/
http://www.cato.org/research/article...en-030728.html
These are all articles that criticize Bush over the economy. A quick google search with the terms "Criticism of Bush over economy" brought up over 5,000,000 hits. There's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to the various criticisms of Bush's presidency.
So, the idea that Bush has somehow escaped criticism for his presidency seems a bit odd to me, to say the least.
Its incredibly odd to me too. I dont follow it and I never said it nor did anyone else from what I've read. My point was that Bush did not recieve as much criticism on that issue as he did on others and that if people want to be critical on the issue of the economy they should be critical of both of them not just one of them.
If people are saying that the criticism of Obama is extreme...well, these are extreme times. Taxpayer money is being used.
I thought extreme times called for extreme action/measures not extreme criticism. Also had people been more extremely critical of Bush then maybe we wouldnt be in extreme times and maybe taxpayer money would not need to be used. See, goes both ways.
Also, while it may
seem a bit hypocritical for people to give Bush a pass and then criticize Obama, I'm guessing that some of those same people who were calling for Bush's head will give Obama a free pass on his policies. For a quick example, will all of the people who criticized Bush on detainee issues now be criticizing the Obama administration because it hasn't acted quickly enough on certain detainee issues (the administration is still keeping the Bush DOJ's protocol on fighting habeas corpus petitions in a number of cases? Or, will they give President Obama a break on that issue? Like it or not, hypocrisy is a part of politics, and we've all been guilty of hypocrisy whether we like to admit it or not.
It doesnt seem hypocritical; it is. Just because you're all hypocrites does not make hypocracy right.
In my experience, people don't mind the hypocrisy as long as their candidate isn't criticized. I'm ok with that viewpoint, as long as people are honest with themselves about it.
Im saying that I mind hypocrisy. Im also saying that I mind when people try to play hypocracy off as critisicm. They're not the same. I think that is the general point: be as critical as you want just dont be hypocritical.
There are a couple of issues with this statement. First, the re-election of Bush had a GREAT deal to do with the fact that the Democrats were unable to produce a viable candidate. They brought someone who has spent his career trying to ride Kennedy's coat tails and who has made a career of refusing to work "across the aisle."
This chart shows Bush's approval ratings over the years:
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
In it you can see that his ratings were only particularly high in the wake of 9/11; other than that, it wasn't like there was an outpouring of support for Bush.
Voting for Bush is accepting his policies. Unless you pull a Hillary and say something like "I voted for it but I hoped it didnt pass" then you pretty much accept that if you vote for the guy his agenda will be passed (unless you have adequate reason to think otherwise). So, to re-elect Bush is in essence to tolerate his policies (and to allow his policies to continue to be implemented is to accept his policies). I realize that acceptance does imply some sort of positive feeling or approval, but I do not mean that people approved of Bush's policies. I mean that they accepted them. You dont have to approve of something to go along with it. Thats what happened people accepted his policies. One could argue that the approval ended after his first term, but the acceptance still continued.
I would also disagree with your conclusions as
to when people thought the country was "screwed" because of his policies, or that re-election automatically equates to "wide acceptance" of his policies.
I didnt say that people thought the country was screwed because of his policies. I said that once people thought the country was screwed (ie: predicting recession, no end in sight to the war, issues with the war in general, National security issues etc.) then they began to see his policies as bad. At then end of Bush's last term is where you heard congress people saying things like "Yeah I voted for the war, but I thought (insert b/s here)" or "I voted for Bush policy X and it was a mistake because Bush is bad" JMac was one of the few people who didnt try to distance themselves from Bush immediately.
My opinion is that there are always going to be voters and people who feel that the President isn't receiving enough of the credit or enough of the blame. The people who say that Bush got a free pass, in my opinion, are analogous to the people who talk about how the media was out to get Bush. They are two sides of an extreme, and I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Threaded Mode
