ratbastid

This is what I meant when I said I'm not all that interested in consistency. Not given the gaping chest-wound Bush left. Not given the blind eye turned on those who opposed him and the free pass and bullhorn given those who are blustering against Obama.

Here's one place you can see the asymmetry of this thing: People who protested Bush's actions largely were protesting Bush's actions. Yes some names got called, but whatever conclusion people came to about Bush's intellectual capacity were brought about by observation of his policies and decisions.

By contrast, these tea party people are against Obama personally. They don't know enough about any policy (for instance the actual health care legislation) to formulate an argument against the policy itself. They have to change its name to "Obamacare" as a signal to fellow anti-Obamites that it's a Bad Thing, because Obama's a Bad Man. And then their reasoned, specific response to the legislation is "It's a gummint takeover!".

We looked at what Bush did and called him an idiot. People call Obama a communist muslim nazi, and then are against anything he does. To treat the two like they're ANYTHING like the same is just ridiculous.

And look, the things Obama has done that Bush did too (ie. extending USA Patriot, wiretapping, etc), I'm as against those when Obama did them as I was when Bush was doing them. I don't give Obama any passes on those things. I didn't expect anything different--he told us during the campaign he would be doing that. So it doesn't surprise me or particularly disappoint me, but I do disapprove.