If someone found a tape where George W. Bush, long before he had been elected President faulted a Democratic Administration for using tactics that he would use once in office, you can bet that the media would be playing that audio clip on a regular basis.
Well, while reading what was on the mind of various friends on Facebook, I chanced upon a YouTube audio a reader had linked revealing then-U.S. Senator-elect Barack Obama faulting the Bush Administration for rushing legislation through:
When you rush these budgets that are foot high and nobody has an idea what’s in ’em and nobody’s read ’em . . . . and it get’s rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate . . . . There was no real debate about that [Patriot Act]. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the Administration.
Seems kind of newsworthy, no?
Wonder if some Democratic Congressmen, trying to hold onto their seats next fall, will be complaining that they were intimidated by the Administration. Wonder how many of our Representatives and Senators read the “stimulus” before voting for it. Or Waxman-Markey, especially given that 300-odd page amendment inserted in the dead of night.
Oh, well, as the White House Chief of Staff might say, those crises are terrible things to waste. And, you see, when a Democrat’s in the White House, it’s in the national interest to rush legislation because, well, you know, they’re doing the right thing and they mean so well.
All that said, I’m eager to see how many MSM outlets will publicize Barack Obama’s words on the 185th anniversay of George Eliot’s birth. (The interview is dated November 22, 2004.)
I’m glad you posted this, but I wish I could say that I was surprised. There’s a very simple reason why it’s not a particularly arduous task to catch liberals on the record taking diametrically-opposing positions from moment to moment based on political expediency. Consistency requires principles, and they have none. That’s it. We saw a fine example of this from Claire McCaskill the other day–the moment she saw the possibility of more guns being put in the hands of law-abiding citizens, she suddenly transformed into a champion for states’ rights. And we can count on her to take the opposite position tomorrow if the Missouri Legislature, for example, tries to pass a reasonable restriction on abortion.
And why wouldn’t Obama engage in this kind of hypocrisy? He knows he can count on the MSM to either (at best) ignore it, or (at worst) characterize it as “a masterstroke of Presidential flexibility.”
Also, Senator Obama did not vote for either of President Bush’s Supreme Court Nominees.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002 — Alioto
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245 — Roberts
I say all Conservatives and republicans in the House and the Senate should show as much deference to this president as senator Obama showed to the last one.
If the Democrats want civility and support, show it when the shoe is on the other foot.
I was thinking the same thing about Obama not supporting Bushes judges. But it is a conservative principle that Presidents generally get their appointees. As long as they aren’t nutts. Cabinet members, or judges. If the Democrats hadn’t gone after Bork and Thomas the way they did, I think even today, most every judge would be confirmed and you’d hardly have a reason to televise any hearings. Thats the way it was 25 years ago. Boring. But the country wasn’t riled up.
Any chance you have a link for that clip?