O as W

It's weird. Conservative publications are printing arguments that, with a light re-writing, should appear in lefty rags -- and which will appear in such venues, once independent thought becomes permissible again. Here's an NRO piece that points out the eerie similarities between Barky and Georgie -- and mark my words, The Nation will print an exactly similar piece within two years, unthinkable as that outcome might seem right now:

Bush has also been castigated (by all sides) for allowing government spending to reach record levels. (The Left accepts no responsibility, even though the Pelosi-Reid Congress has been in control the past two years and severely disrupted Bush prior to that.) Obama’s robust plans will expand government spending far past the levels Bush has overseen. During the first debate, he was unable to announce a single spending program he would cut to make room for the bailout expenditure he was supporting.

The Left has excoriated Bush for infringing on individual rights, whether through spying on us all, utilizing torture, or holding captives at Guantanamo. While Obama has yet to be in a position to exercise any similar power, his responses to negative campaign ads give some clue as to how much he respects individual rights. From having pressured cable channels not to run certain ads to trying to stir up Justice Department investigations into those involved in creating the ads, Obama seems to indicate that free speech is not a value he holds dear.

Bush is repeatedly charged with cronyism and labeled as a pawn for oil companies. The implication is that Bush, an oilman, abused his power to assist his presumed big-oil buddies. The same charge, with more than a hint of corruption, is leveled at Cheney and his Halliburton chums for having received no-bid contracts in Iraq. Obama seems to have interesting relationships with his pals as well. His record is replete with bills he facilitated to grant government money to real-estate developers, particularly recently convicted slumlord Tony Rezko, who, in turn, helped finance Obama’s campaigns and assisted his home purchase.

This is no small point. Obama has a long history of using "progressive" causes as an excuse to funnel government money to shady campaign contributors. Most of the media ignored this sort of robbery when W's cronies pilfered the public treasury during Iraq reconstruction and the post-Katrina clean-up. Never forget that Rezko's pals tried to get a chunk of the Iraq reconstruction cash, and never forget Rezko's ties to Bushco.

Bush has been tagged with subordinating his work schedule to his exercise requirements at all costs. Obama is sometimes said to be exercising three times a day, and he has referred to his exceptionally long workouts.

That one's new to me. But I'm not surprised.

The Bush narratives were constantly shaped in relationship to his father...

Nuff said.

While Bush has often been cast as a front for the likes of Karl Rove, the evil genius, we have never seen such a well-manufactured specimen as Obama. David Axelrod, a pro trained with Chicago’s Daley machine, engages all of the “mischievous” attributes commonly projected upon Rove.

Axelrod has criticized the “victim” tactics of Hillary Clinton while fully exploiting being a victim of some nebulous “divisiveness.” The attacks on Sarah Palin (and the false rumors about her baby) would have been identified as classic “Rove” maneuvers had they emanated from a Republican campaign.

Democrats have been led to believe that after this election, no longer will we Americans (much less our highly valued allies who have had to suffer right along with us) have to put up with a president who came into office without relevant experience. One who had used drugs and alcohol more than experimentally and who only came to find God later in life. One who spends an inordinate amount of time exercising and vacationing. One who has had lifelong psychological issues concerning his father. One who is so stubborn and inflexible that he is unwilling to admit his mistakes. Nor will we have to live with a president so naïve about the world. One forced to select an aged and “experienced” running mate to lend his ticket gravitas.

Well, in truth, I don't think that Obama will be much of a vacationer. And, thanks be to almighty providence, he does not have a fake ranch where the brush needs perpetual clearing.