Barack Obama

"What if Bush Had Done That?" or, Hypocrisy Alert When it Comes to Barack Obama

|

Politico reports on the amazing inconsistency of the political class and its counterparts in the media. They very things that George Bush did that teed off Dems and libs don't seem to bother them anymore. And vice versa when it comes to Reps and cons. Not an original point perhaps, but one worth pondering.

Snippets:

"Virtually all the Democrats who were apoplectic about Bush and were constantly complaining about him 'trampling on our values' over eavesdropping and detention have been silent about assassination, even though it's so much more severe," [Salon.com's Glenn] Greenwald said. "It isn't that Obama is necessarily any worse on civil liberties than Bush. The point is he's able to get away with so much more."…

He's attended 103 reelection fundraisers — about double the 52 such events Bush had attended at this point in 2004, according to tallies kept by CBS's Mark Knoller.

Obama also changed course and recently blessed the efforts of super PAC Priorities USA Action, allowing top campaign aides and even Cabinet members to appear at its fundraising events….

Since Obama took office, prosecutors have filed six criminal, Espionage Act cases over leaks — more prosecutions than under all prior presidents combined. In one, the Justice Department is trying to force New York Times reporter James Risen to identify his confidential sources and has argued to a federal appeals court that journalists enjoy no privilege against being called as witnesses in a criminal case. If the government prevails, Risen is likely to end up in jail for contempt….

Obama has hit the links more than 90 times since assuming the presidency in 2009. The outings, often weekly during the spring and summer months, draw scant attention from the press, save for a few complaints from pool reporters about being stuck for the day at an Andrews Air Force Base food court.

Bush's golfing was a frequent subject of mockery by his critics. Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" immortalized the 43rd president on the links in 2002 decrying the scourge of terrorism before declaring, "Now watch this drive!"

Whole story here.

Political hypocrisy is nothing new, of course, and it cuts both ways. The same folks who are bitching about Obama for X, Y, and Z may well have been defending Bush a few years ago. But none of that makes it less seemly, especially when the media insists that it is the watchdog of democracy and all that jazz.

NEXT: Reason.tv: John Stossel on the Media, Liberty, and Why He Doesn't Miss Working for ABC

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sports bar ?ber alles!

    1. The MSM are a bunch of Obama-cocksuckers.

      When shit really hits the fan, every MSM ‘journaleast’ should kill themselves. What they will be facing will be much, much worse.

  2. has argued to a federal appeals court that journalists enjoy no privilege against being called as witnesses in a criminal case.

    Well, they’re right about that one.

    1. I have to agree. Either everyone has that privilege or no one does. Granting it only to the “press” (presumably determined by the government) is a quick way to have two classes of people when it comes to criminal trials.

      1. I vote for everyone.

      2. The freedom of the press and the freedom of speech must be different somehow, since they’re mentioned seperately in the first amendment.

        I’d be totally comfortable with a distinction that says a person or organization habitually engaged in the dissemination of information gets extra first amendment protections for actions necessary to do this. Such as, providing confidentiality to sources. (within reasonable limits of course…you couldn’t let a murderer walk because of this)

        1. Of course they are different. Speech is when you open your mouth and make intelligible sounds. Press is when you use some medium of mass communication to spread your ideas. I think that protecting journalists’ confidential sources is desirable, but I think it should be dealt with by making specific shield laws to protect journalists.

          1. Are bloggers journalists? How about a commenter on a blog?

      3. Yeah. The Press is a medium, not a select group of “serious journalists” to be determined by the courts. Everyone has freedom of the press, just like with speech.

        1. I think that protecting journalists’ confidential sources is desirable, but I think it should be dealt with by making specific shield laws to protect journalists.

          Terrible idea. No offense. We don’t need more protected classes of special snowflakes with privileges and immunities mere proles don’t enjoy.

  3. “It isn’t that Obama is necessarily any worse on civil liberties than Bush. The point is he’s able to get away with so much more.”

    Greenwald asserts the only thing that kept Bush from going full-tilt assassin on American citizens was a watchdog press? Glenn Greenwald may not necessarily be any worse of an Obama apologist. The point is he just needs to keep the Bush boogeyman going so he doesn’t completely alienate his Salon readers.

  4. Intellectual property is bullshit! Who’s with me?

  5. They are all cunts pushing their agenda. No shit.

    1. *queef*

  6. Political hypocrisy is nothing new, of course, and it cuts both ways.

    Not, it seems, if you reside in the commanding heights of the political-media complex.

  7. Ike played a lot of golf. Good prez too.

    1. plus ike stomped bushitler

      that is all

    2. He was mocked for it, too.

  8. “It isn’t that Obama is necessarily any worse on civil liberties than Bush. The point is he’s able to get away with so much more.”

    Which has inevitably made him worse on civil liberties. But it isn’t like the left ever really cared much about most civil liberties anyways… unless we are talking about abortion rights.

    1. That’s not fair, EMP. The left cares a whole lot about your civil right to free contraception, too.

      1. Are you really free if you aren’t free to not make babies for free?

        1. That hurt my brain.

        2. Are you really free if you aren’t free to not make and raise babies for free?

          FTFY

        3. Let’s just cut to the chase:

          Are you really free if everything you want isn’t free?

          1. Getting to the meat of it there, but Fatty’s would make a great bumper sticker (I judge bumper stickers relative greatness by how likely people behind you are liable to crash trying to decipher it.)

            1. Do I even get a thanks from libertarians?

    2. “”The point is he’s able to get away with so much more.”””

      When was Bush not able to get away with it?

  9. Obama has hit the links more than 90 times since assuming the presidency in 2009

    That’s outrageous! Twice that often, at the very least, would be much better for the country. In fact, take the rest of the year off and really hone that swing, Mr. President. You’ve earned it.

    1. It’s hard work being that corrupt.

  10. From an earlier comment, what if Republicans/conservatives/prolifers supported a priest or minister who was willing to break the law, and to invoke his/her ordination vow to justify such behavior:

    http://bit.ly/ydQ1hG

    1. Depends on what law they break, I woudl say. There are lots of laws that I am OK with anyone breaking.

      1. Probably referring to the minister who transported a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental permission.

        1. Not familiar with the story you’re referring to, but I’m going to take a wild guess that the baby was his.

          1. She’s a female Episcopelian lesbian priestess. She felt a duty to “help” minor girls get abortions, and told Congress, “if helping young women like her should be made illegal I will, nonetheless, continue to do it.”

  11. “””especially when the media insists that it is the watchdog of democracy and all that jazz.”””

    Some may, but it’s hard to hear them among all the crap that calls themselves news and screaming to get ratings.

    1. I suppose. But interesting thing. The British Newspapers seem to be thriving. I wonder why that is?

      1. Because most British newspapers (The Sun, The Gaurdian, The Daily Mail, etc.) gave up on the pretense that they were anything more than glorified celebutard gossip/ tabloid trash a long time ago. You don’t see the National Enquirer going belly up here either do you?

  12. yep, old news. but thank goodness the “teams” are no more static populations than the “poor”. I did look the other way a little with GWB, but won’t with Mitt. Hopefully many are wiser for being suckers.

  13. Rest assured, President Romney will be happy to engage in all of the civil liberties abuses that Obama has engaged in and call them “bipartisan”.

    It is not that one side is better than the other. They are not. It is that the Democrats wasted everyone’s time for 8 years lying and pretending that the stuff Bush did was really objectionable to them.

    1. It is that the Democrats Republicans wasted everyone’s time for 8 years lying and pretending that the stuff Bush Clinton did was really objectionable to them.

      They are the same.

      1. The same folks who are bitching about Obama for X, Y, and Z may well have been defending Bush a few years ago.

        Noticed that? Even Nick couldn’t come up with a good example, or else that would be filled in. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not hypocrites but love them some war, Middle East ass kicking, and a heaping helping of security theater thrown on top of the fuck pile. It doesn’t matter to them if it is a Black Muslim Communist, or a WASP of their own who runs the show, they’re going to ‘support our troops’ as the euphemism for bloodlust goes. It would be better for all of us if the Republicans were hypocrites and went massively anti-war when Team Blue conducts them, but they are highly principled about killing foreigners, whereas, Democrats are opportunist in ALL cases. That is the real difference between the two.

  14. Nick;

    Shouldn’t that last sentence read “less unseemly,” not “less seemly?”

  15. allowing top campaign aides and even Cabinet members to appear at its fundraising events

    Maybe it’s just me, but that sounds like it comes awfully close to coordination between Obama’s campaign and Priorities USA Action. Which I thought was illegal. Even if they are just going to $10,000 dollar a plate dinners, what do you think they talk about around the dinner table?

    1. I’m Eric Holder will get right on it.

      After the dessert course at tonight’s fundraiser.

  16. Time Magazine even had a “leave Obama aloooone! Leave him ALOOOOONE!” bit a few months ago about how only the President can decide how much vacation and golfing hijinx the President needs.

    Which is funny, because usually your employer makes those kinds of decisions, and last I checked, Obama wasn’t exactly self-employed. I suppose it serves me right for reading Time–every issue I’ve looked at for for at least the past two years has been essentially a straightup Democrat newsletter/Obama hagiography.

  17. That reminds me of what Cartman said in the South Park episode “1%”.

    “Token, please. You’re the only person I can trust. Because in today’s time, black people are somehow incapable of doing something wrong.”

    1. The link is broken, click at http://southpark.wikia.com/wik…..n_19:_2015 and then “1%”, sorry for the inconvience.

    2. I think a white democrat would probably be treated the same. Partisanship is the last acceptable form of prejudice, and all that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.