Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.
Though I agree with you on the fact that criticizing is a right that everyone has no matter what. I think the point that DeepImpact is trying to make is that the criticism of Obama seems unfair because he has been in office for less than 2 months and the criticism he is getting could be considered extreme as compared to the way that the same critics treated GWB for the first 5 or 6 years he was in office. No one would argue with the fact that GW made some horrible decisions. One of them being the Patriot Act and another being the war in Iraq and how it was handled. GW has gotten criticism for these, but he has not been criticized (to the same extent) for lack of oversight of the economy and other really bad decisions that he has made. The sentiment I believe that Deep Impact and others like her are trying to convey is that there is nothing wrong with criticism from anyone, but there is something wrong with criticism on one part and indifference or lack of criticism on another. If you're going to criticize Obama on oversight of these companies getting tax payer dollars then you should be equally willing to criticize the lack of oversight it took for these companies to need tax payer dollars. That's just one example.
|
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.
If people are saying that the criticism of Obama is extreme...well, these are extreme times. Taxpayer money is being used
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.
Idk where DeepImapct lives but I live in America where for about 4-6 years people tolerated and accepted Bush's policies. Hell they re-elected him. If that isnt wide acceptance I dont know what is. It wasnt until the end of his last term when people realized that the country was screwed that Bush's policies became "bad" or intolerable. I dont get why some people act like the American people were totally against Bush the whole time he was in office. Bush had a lot of support until the last half of his last term.
I agree that nothing will be 100%. I didnt disagree with all of Bush's policies. In fact I liked some that many other people hated. I believe some of his policies had potential. One in particular was the no child left behind act. Had the act been given the proper care, attention, guidance, and funding it could have helped our schools. It wasnt. It didnt. I agree with the wall/fence border idea. The issue I have with people who want to criticize is that if they are not willing to actually critically think while doing so their criticism is just a bunch of bull. I also dont get why someone cannot be of the opinion that the criticism is unfair. Sometimes it is. Thats life.
|
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. 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.
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.
Hybrid Mode
