A Note on Hypocrisy

[QUENTIN]

Predictably, and sadly, many of you seem to have missed the point and continued right on to the step 3 I outlined.

Right now, Republicans and conservatives are far more guilty of this because a Democrat is in office and because Obama is continuing many of Bush's policies.

There were less similarities between Bush and Clinton, but if for instance you opposed NAFTA under Clinton and didn't trot it out to criticize Bush, your opinion on the subject is worthless. If Bush had an extramarital affair come to light and the Democrats who stood behind Clinton hammered him on it, they'd be full of it.

On the other side of things, there are now lots of Democrats who blindly support Obama policies that are indistinguishable from Bush policies simply because it's "their guy." But while those people are common, I don't see them on these boards like I do their conservative counterparts, which is they're not who I highlighted even though I made it clear this happens on both sides among the "team players" who lack any real political convictions.

2.) A liberal or Democrat points out that Bush did the same thing

This is "Appeal to Mom" which is a logical fallacy. It's basically "Mom, the other kid did it too" and it's never worked, even on Mom. It's in the "bandwagon" category of logical fallacies, and most mature people stop using it around age eight, when Mom raps them in the mouth for trying it.

No. See, IF it were the case that saying "Bush did that too or did it even more!" was an excuse used to justify an Obama action or policy, then what you're saying would be true. It would be an "Appeal to Mom" defense with all the logical fallacies that includes. My point was that that's NOT the case. It's not saying Obama's behavior is okay because Bush did it, but instead one doesn't have the right to criticize it if they were mum when Bush did the same. It's an argument against hypocritical, disingenuous individuals playing the partisan game, not for hypocritical actions by politicians.

This infantile defensive/deflection tactic is actually an argument against Obama, since there was supposed to be change there should be no comparisons in existence to anything Booooosh did or said. If there is, where's the change we voted for?

It's not infantile for the reasons outlined above, but it is an argument against Obama. Any honest or self-respecting liberal who criticizes Bush on detention policy or the wars or state secrets, on and on, would criticize Obama just as severely if not moreso. I'm pro or anti-policies based on their effects, I could give a shit who implements them.

You're also making assumptions of facts not in evidence for your "hypocrisy" case, with the broad brush "cons never had a problem with Boooosh doing that" when in fact, you don't know what they had a problem with. This is unless you have a massive database of all "cons" positively self-identified, and ALL on record as not having ANY gripes about things Boooosh said/did.
The fact is, you do not know, therefore you assume. Another weak debate tactic.

But I do. I've followed politics closely for many years and was well-aware during the Bush years of the lockstep support he enjoyed among the vast, vast majority of conservatives during much of his presidency and especially his first term even when he enacted decidedly unconservative policies. The significant majority of Republicans who bash nearly every move Obama makes defended nearly every thing Bush did for years, even where the two take the same approach. The history we're talking about is too recent to now pretend there was ample conservative criticism of Bush from 2001-2006. There just wasn't.

You also seem to think your OP here represents some kind of revelation, or light-bulb moment, something representing original thought, when in fact it's old regurgitated WH kool-aid which has been indiscriminately imbibed and bazooka barfed for almost eight months, at least.

In a word, fail. Or flail. Or both.

I'm not sure where you get the impression I think this is a strikingly original or revelatory thought. It's certainly not regurgitated from anything coming from a White House I disdain. Pretty please, with sugar on top, try to support that claim by providing evidence of any White House entity promoting this argument.

Rather, it's my observation of a common logical fallacy and poor debate tactic, that when one's hypocrisy is pointed out, they respond by calling their accuser a cry baby or willfully pretend the other guy is justifying bad policy by making it clear they're just in no position to attack such a policy and maintain integrity.

 

[Care4all]

As I recall the situation. President Bush did not run on hope change and transparency. but obammie did. and what President Bush did took eight years, obammie has outpaced him by 7.

What did Bush run on? What made you vote for him? twice

 

[xsited1]

you guys are doing JUST WHAT HE POINTED OUT that you do, no?

...

So are you a member of the Red Team or the Blue Team?

 

[L.K.Eder]

As I recall the situation. President Bush did not run on hope change and transparency. but obammie did. and what President Bush did took eight years, obammie has outpaced him by 7.

What did Bush run on? What made you vote for him? twice

restoring honor and dignity to the white house, humble foreign policy with no nation building, compassionate conservatism.

 

[del]

As I recall the situation. President Bush did not run on hope change and transparency. but obammie did. and what President Bush did took eight years, obammie has outpaced him by 7.

What did Bush run on? What made you vote for him? twice

i voted for him once based on this:

'Speaking to a cheering crowd in Chattanooga, Tenn., one day before the Nov. 7, 2000, election, George W. Bush repeated a line that had by then been a standard part of the stump speech for many, many months--and one that now seems, in the face of looming U.S. military action in Iraq, quite contradictory.

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

The line was an explicit condemnation of Clinton/Gore foreign policy--specifically that the White House had stretched the military too thin with peacekeeping mission in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans. President Clinton and Vice President Gore, his Democratic opponent, had strayed from the central mission of the military: to fight and win wars, Bush said.'

Bush Backs Into Nation Building

needless to say, i didn't vote for him again.

 

[L.K.Eder]

As I recall the situation. President Bush did not run on hope change and transparency. but obammie did. and what President Bush did took eight years, obammie has outpaced him by 7.

What did Bush run on? What made you vote for him? twice

i voted for him once based on this:

'Speaking to a cheering crowd in Chattanooga, Tenn., one day before the Nov. 7, 2000, election, George W. Bush repeated a line that had by then been a standard part of the stump speech for many, many months--and one that now seems, in the face of looming U.S. military action in Iraq, quite contradictory.

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

The line was an explicit condemnation of Clinton/Gore foreign policy--specifically that the White House had stretched the military too thin with peacekeeping mission in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans. President Clinton and Vice President Gore, his Democratic opponent, had strayed from the central mission of the military: to fight and win wars, Bush said.'

Bush Backs Into Nation Building

needless to say, i didn't vote for him again.

fooled you once, shame on you, couldn't get fooled again, wha?

 

[Care4all]

excuse me willow, but the deficit spending was about a trillion dollars a YEAR when Obama took office and 1.6/1.8? trillion by the time bush's budget for 2009 was complete sept 30th...or something of the sort....

So Obama's first fiscal year budget for 2010 which began october 1st, the estimate is that he will CUT the previous administrations deficit spending of 1.6/1.8? trillion a year by about $400 billion I believe a chart someone else had posted on another thread the other day....I'm not saying he is going to be able to do this, but this is what the estimate budget for 2010 shows...and it shows that this deficit that he inherited will be cut in half by his next election...again, we will see on that....

Fiscal year 2009 which began october of 2008 falls under the Bush administration.

 

[Care4all]

you guys are doing JUST WHAT HE POINTED OUT that you do, no?

...

So are you a member of the Red Team or the Blue Team?

i'm white neutral on this topic....i saw what conservatives did with "their man" and I see what democrats are doing with "their man"

 

[QUENTIN]

Almost as hypocritical as running a campaign on a mantra of "Hope and change", and then use "they did it too" as an excuse to keep doing the same things.

99.9% of them are all fuckin' hypocrites, regardless of party affiliation, same as people who are in the tank for their respective parties.

I don't think this is actually happening. I think the Obama Administration actively tries to distance itself from Bush every way it can even when, perhaps especially when, it's mimicking their policies. I haven't seen them invoke Bush's implementation of a policy once as a justification for their similar implementation. Do you have any examples of that happening?

That part of what I'm getting at, I think it's a misinterpretation that someone replying "Bush did precisely what you're complaining about and it didn't bother you then" is "an excuse to keep doing the same things." I support very, very little of Obama's policies and think he's a bad president. I criticize every Bush-replicating action he's taken and a few terrible new ones of his own. But when I see someone a Republican congressman, or editorialist, or forum poster who defended Bush's vacations and inaction on the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan or restriction of civil liberties now try to use the same shit against Obama, I call foul because it's dishonest and belies their true intentions which are no more complicated or noble than being a partisan shill. The same is true in the inverse. You can't suddenly claim to find or lose your principles just because the party switched hands. If you do, they're not principles but mere talking points.

As I mentioned, the common chain of events is not an excuse for Obama's bad decisions and policies, only a condemnation of those whose party allegiance outweighs their honesty. The fact that so many Obama actions are fundamentally the same as Bush's to prompt this chain of events does demonstrate that Obama is decidedly a hypocrite guilty of the same shit I'm taking others to task on.

 

[xsited1]

you guys are doing JUST WHAT HE POINTED OUT that you do, no?

...

So are you a member of the Red Team or the Blue Team?

i'm white neutral on this topic....i saw what conservatives did with "their man" and I see what democrats are doing with "their man"

People say that, but I rarely believe them. When push comes to shove, they'll vote for either the Red Team or the Blue Team in a heartbeat. Hopefully, you're an exception.

 

[The Rabbi]

you guys are doing JUST WHAT HE POINTED OUT that you do, no?

Admit your mistakes....is what you should do.

Admit that you sat idly by while your man did the same things as obama OR WORSE.....

The truth will set you free and open your eyes to what is really going on here....

And to the author of this thread:

All that you are saying is TRUE about most of the Conservatives, I agree.

But why not take it a step further and ask yourself, when Bush was in power and he did these things that were violations of the constitution or kissing with the Saudi Prince, or sending more troops to War, or his and the conservative's deficit spending, you screamed from the rooftops about it....

Where is this screaming from the rooftops about these SAME TYPE THINGS when the Obama administration does them?

It seems like it is the same thing that you are rightfully bitching about....only it is Dems that are letting "their man" slide....same as what the Republicans did with president Bush, no?

Care

And on cue.. just as I stated.. another uber-lefty trying to rewrite history... like Conservatives did not criticize many decision of Bush and his administration... especially on spending...

And don't you dare let truth get in the way of leftist hype on the typical parrot points like 'violations to the constitution'

Absolutely laughable

Republicans didn't, just show me where ya did and i will eat my words....there was no criticism of president bush of any kind of significance UNTIL Conservatives LOST their BUTTS in the 2006 election....then we started to hear slight murmurs....but you went a good solid 6 years of letting the republicans do as they wish, DEFICIT SPEND until the cows came home or like drunken sailors or like there was no tomorrow....I'm sorry, but you all let them do this, with hardly a murmur....you even reelected President Bush in 2004...while our national debt went from 5.6 trillion to 11.2 trillion....it is rewriting history to say otherwise imo dave....

And I am not negating that a few of you more independent leaning types did not complain some near the end about spending....

Do you really think we added 6-7 trillion to the national debt, when all said and done, in 8 years because you all didn't support your man?

It's laughable alright....

Each side of the aisle does the same thing...you are no different, dems are no different...each are blindly supporting "their man".....Dems are no different than you....and this does not mean I am justifying it, because I am not.

You are one tiresome ill-informed woman. Would you like a fork or spoon?
Bush Says He Will Veto Any Legislation Reducing Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits

Senate Budget Committee Chair Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said, "I still am very suspect of this drug program and where it's going and the amount of money it's going to cost" (Douglas, Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/12). Gregg said the new drug benefit "was estimated to be a $400 billion program over 10 years. That's what it should be" (AP/Manchester Union-Leader, 2/14). He added, "I do think we are going to have to go back and readdress" the new Medicare law (Washington Times, 2/12). Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said he will consider drafting new legislation limiting the Medicare drug benefit to low-income beneficiaries (Baltimore Sun, 2/12). Flake said, "I cannot imagine the president would veto a bill that would more closely resemble what he originally wanted, a means-tested benefit to help low-income seniors who cannot afford their medicines" (New York Times, 2/12). Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) said of the new cost projections, "I think every member [of Congress] looked at this price tag and said, 'Oh my God, what have we done?'" He added that Bush's veto threat will not stop lawmakers from working to reduce costs, saying, "In many respects, that kind of language is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. On issues like prescription drugs and the budget, the bulls are running" (Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times, 2/12). Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she would continue to push for legislation requiring the federal government to negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical companies, as well as a separate bill to legalize reimportation (New York Times, 2/12).

 

[Care4all]

And on cue.. just as I stated.. another uber-lefty trying to rewrite history... like Conservatives did not criticize many decision of Bush and his administration... especially on spending...

And don't you dare let truth get in the way of leftist hype on the typical parrot points like 'violations to the constitution'

Absolutely laughable

Republicans didn't, just show me where ya did and i will eat my words....there was no criticism of president bush of any kind of significance UNTIL Conservatives LOST their BUTTS in the 2006 election....then we started to hear slight murmurs....but you went a good solid 6 years of letting the republicans do as they wish, DEFICIT SPEND until the cows came home or like drunken sailors or like there was no tomorrow....I'm sorry, but you all let them do this, with hardly a murmur....you even reelected President Bush in 2004...while our national debt went from 5.6 trillion to 11.2 trillion....it is rewriting history to say otherwise imo dave....

And I am not negating that a few of you more independent leaning types did not complain some near the end about spending....

Do you really think we added 6-7 trillion to the national debt, when all said and done, in 8 years because you all didn't support your man?

It's laughable alright....

Each side of the aisle does the same thing...you are no different, dems are no different...each are blindly supporting "their man".....Dems are no different than you....and this does not mean I am justifying it, because I am not.

You are one tiresome ill-informed woman. Would you like a fork or spoon?
Bush Says He Will Veto Any Legislation Reducing Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits

Senate Budget Committee Chair Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said, "I still am very suspect of this drug program and where it's going and the amount of money it's going to cost" (Douglas, Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/12). Gregg said the new drug benefit "was estimated to be a $400 billion program over 10 years. That's what it should be" (AP/Manchester Union-Leader, 2/14). He added, "I do think we are going to have to go back and readdress" the new Medicare law (Washington Times, 2/12). Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said he will consider drafting new legislation limiting the Medicare drug benefit to low-income beneficiaries (Baltimore Sun, 2/12). Flake said, "I cannot imagine the president would veto a bill that would more closely resemble what he originally wanted, a means-tested benefit to help low-income seniors who cannot afford their medicines" (New York Times, 2/12). Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) said of the new cost projections, "I think every member [of Congress] looked at this price tag and said, 'Oh my God, what have we done?'" He added that Bush's veto threat will not stop lawmakers from working to reduce costs, saying, "In many respects, that kind of language is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. On issues like prescription drugs and the budget, the bulls are running" (Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times, 2/12). Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she would continue to push for legislation requiring the federal government to negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical companies, as well as a separate bill to legalize reimportation (New York Times, 2/12).

What are you trying to say...that republicans in the senate filibustered Bush's medicare pill bill to stop it from going through as they did to the democratic agenda 60 times since the dems took power? What a joke!

 

[DiamondDave]

you guys are doing JUST WHAT HE POINTED OUT that you do, no?

Admit your mistakes....is what you should do.

Admit that you sat idly by while your man did the same things as obama OR WORSE.....

The truth will set you free and open your eyes to what is really going on here....

And to the author of this thread:

All that you are saying is TRUE about most of the Conservatives, I agree.

But why not take it a step further and ask yourself, when Bush was in power and he did these things that were violations of the constitution or kissing with the Saudi Prince, or sending more troops to War, or his and the conservative's deficit spending, you screamed from the rooftops about it....

Where is this screaming from the rooftops about these SAME TYPE THINGS when the Obama administration does them?

It seems like it is the same thing that you are rightfully bitching about....only it is Dems that are letting "their man" slide....same as what the Republicans did with president Bush, no?

Care

And on cue.. just as I stated.. another uber-lefty trying to rewrite history... like Conservatives did not criticize many decision of Bush and his administration... especially on spending...

And don't you dare let truth get in the way of leftist hype on the typical parrot points like 'violations to the constitution'

Absolutely laughable

Republicans didn't, just show me where ya did and i will eat my words....there was no criticism of president bush of any kind of significance UNTIL Conservatives LOST their BUTTS in the 2006 election....then we started to hear slight murmurs....but you went a good solid 6 years of letting the republicans do as they wish, DEFICIT SPEND until the cows came home or like drunken sailors or like there was no tomorrow....I'm sorry, but you all let them do this, with hardly a murmur....you even reelected President Bush in 2004...while our national debt went from 5.6 trillion to 11.2 trillion....it is rewriting history to say otherwise imo dave....

And I am not negating that a few of you more independent leaning types did not complain some near the end about spending....

Do you really think we added 6-7 trillion to the national debt, when all said and done, in 8 years because you all didn't support your man?

It's laughable alright....

Each side of the aisle does the same thing...you are no different, dems are no different...each are blindly supporting "their man".....Dems are no different than you....and this does not mean I am justifying it, because I am not.

Many of us did speak out about increased spending, not cutting any unnecessary government programs, not cutting personal and corporate welfare, etc... many of us did question not going whole hog in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and being more political rather than victory driven... unfortunately I did not start posting here until after your timeframe given... but rest assured there were MANY republicans and conservatives who were vocal against many things that Bush did.... even if they voted for Bush the second time rather than voting for the unacceptable Kerry

It is not just the independent leaning types.. but also the true conservatives and not just the blindfolded Republican lemmings...

Just as there are true blue dog dems and true moderate DEMs who are not just lockstep with Obama and his far left policies... though I think they are more of a rarity on these boards and as a vocal opposition than we see with true conservatives

 

[NYcarbineer]

As I recall the situation. President Bush did not run on hope change and transparency. but obammie did. and what President Bush did took eight years, obammie has outpaced him by 7.

Bush's 1999 speech announcing his run for president was entitled 'The Duty of Hope'.

the duty of hope - Yahoo! Search Results

Click the first link.

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans didn't, just show me where ya did and i will eat my words....there was no criticism of president bush of any kind of significance UNTIL Conservatives LOST their BUTTS in the 2006 election....then we started to hear slight murmurs....but you went a good solid 6 years of letting the republicans do as they wish, DEFICIT SPEND until the cows came home or like drunken sailors or like there was no tomorrow....I'm sorry, but you all let them do this, with hardly a murmur....you even reelected President Bush in 2004...while our national debt went from 5.6 trillion to 11.2 trillion....it is rewriting history to say otherwise imo dave....

And I am not negating that a few of you more independent leaning types did not complain some near the end about spending....

Do you really think we added 6-7 trillion to the national debt, when all said and done, in 8 years because you all didn't support your man?

It's laughable alright....

Each side of the aisle does the same thing...you are no different, dems are no different...each are blindly supporting "their man".....Dems are no different than you....and this does not mean I am justifying it, because I am not.

You are one tiresome ill-informed woman. Would you like a fork or spoon?
Bush Says He Will Veto Any Legislation Reducing Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits

Senate Budget Committee Chair Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said, "I still am very suspect of this drug program and where it's going and the amount of money it's going to cost" (Douglas, Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/12). Gregg said the new drug benefit "was estimated to be a $400 billion program over 10 years. That's what it should be" (AP/Manchester Union-Leader, 2/14). He added, "I do think we are going to have to go back and readdress" the new Medicare law (Washington Times, 2/12). Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said he will consider drafting new legislation limiting the Medicare drug benefit to low-income beneficiaries (Baltimore Sun, 2/12). Flake said, "I cannot imagine the president would veto a bill that would more closely resemble what he originally wanted, a means-tested benefit to help low-income seniors who cannot afford their medicines" (New York Times, 2/12). Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) said of the new cost projections, "I think every member [of Congress] looked at this price tag and said, 'Oh my God, what have we done?'" He added that Bush's veto threat will not stop lawmakers from working to reduce costs, saying, "In many respects, that kind of language is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. On issues like prescription drugs and the budget, the bulls are running" (Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times, 2/12). Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she would continue to push for legislation requiring the federal government to negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical companies, as well as a separate bill to legalize reimportation (New York Times, 2/12).

What are you trying to say...that republicans in the senate filibustered Bush's medicare pill bill to stop it from going through as they did to the democratic agenda 60 times since the dems took power? What a joke!

No, what I'm saying is you are an idiot. You claimed that Republicans never spoke out against Bush's policies until after the 2006 election. Here I post a news story of Republicans (specifically Rep Flake of AZ) doing just that and you change the subject.
Start eating, lady.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"Hope & Change" seems to = "It's ok because the other guys did it too" for all the Hopey Changey followers at this point. An awful lot of hypocrisy there no? The answer is simple in the end...Become an Independent and stop being a slave for any political party. Hey just my opinion anyway.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Didn't Obama run on a platform of "Deficits Bad" and then proceed to QUADRUPLE the national debt in less than a year?
Face it you've been duped by a Chicago race hustler!!!

HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Xenophon]

So I've noticed a trend lately. While it happens all over, it's pretty prevalent here.

1.) A conservative or Republican criticizes Obama for something Bush did as well, that they did not criticize when Bush did it.

Bullshit, you've noticed no such 'trend', that is an excuse Obamatrons use to take the heat off, they CLAIM nobody ripped into Chimpola, based on ZERO proof.

But you did inadvertenly have the right thread title, you proved yourself a hyopcrite quite quickly.

 

[amrchaos]

Well, at least Bush was not born in Kenya!!

 

[QUENTIN]

So I've noticed a trend lately. While it happens all over, it's pretty prevalent here.

1.) A conservative or Republican criticizes Obama for something Bush did as well, that they did not criticize when Bush did it.

Bullshit, you've noticed no such 'trend', that is an excuse Obamatrons use to take the heat off, they CLAIM nobody ripped into Chimpola, based on ZERO proof.

But you did inadvertenly have the right thread title, you proved yourself a hyopcrite quite quickly.

So someone who didn't vote for Obama, never supported Obama, doesn't like Obama, and regularly criticizes Obama is a "Obamatron" if they recognize the hypocrisy in common conservative rhetoric? How many more times do I have to point out that I think Obama's an enormous hypocrite and criticizing him on Bush-mimicking policies is not only fair but valuable... those who defended those policies just don't have the right to do so with a straight face? Not everyone who calls Republicans on their shit is a Democrat. Genuine Goldwater conservatives and stalwart libertarians have every right to criticize Obama policies they have consistently opposed, as do genuine liberals or independent. Just not party shills.

The proof is in the first six years of Bush's presidency, when it was unheard of for Republicans to criticize Bush on anything except his policies on Medicare and immigration, which even then received more lockstep support than criticism. As Rabbi's own link demonstrating one of the unheard of criticisms of Bush shows:

Republican Leaders' Support
According to the Post, several Republican leaders "rallied behind the president while repeating their concerns about the spiraling costs" of the new Medicare drug benefit (Washington Post, 2/12). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said on "Fox News Sunday" that there is no need to change "a very strong bill" before the prescription drug benefit takes effect (McDonough, AP/Manchester Union-Leader, 2/14). He added, "I think we ought to let the program be implemented. It hasn't started. It's going to start in 2006. And then after a year, come back and see if we should make modifications" (Reuters/Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/14). House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said that Republican leaders are giving "no consideration" to proposals that would reduce the prescription drug benefit, adding that the new cost estimates do not take into account savings that likely will occur. House Rules Committee Chair David Dreier (R-Calif.) said that he is "not happy with the projection of a spending level beyond what [was] anticipated," but he added, "I support the president on this. We should not reverse what we worked so hard to put in place"

As big time GOP booster and neocon stalwart Bill Kristol admitted, for nearly eight years conservatives weren't following an ideology, but rather "Bush was the movement and the cause."

Here's an article on the very revisionism you're trying to pull here:

Deleting the Bush Personality Cult from history
The personalized veneration of George Bush was systematic and engulfing. The Right wants to forget that.


National Review's Jay Nordlinger -- and others at that magazine -- are upset that a school is showing a year-old video in which various celebrities spout feel-good platitudes about public service, and -- for a fleeting second -- Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher vow to "be of service to the President." This sentiment -- a desire to serve the President -- is something conservatives would never adopt, apparently:

When I read about that celebrity video where they say, “I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama,” I thought that the people do not deserve to be American citizens, because they have no idea what America or a liberal republic is. . . . Also, it strikes me that "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama" is the product of a thoroughly secular mind, which is another marker of contemporary America. . . . Did conservatives ever say “I pledge to be of service to Ronald Reagan”? I never heard it -- and the notion is preposterous.

I'm always amazed -- even though I know I shouldn't be -- at people's capacity simply to block out events, literally refuse to acknowledge them, when they are inconsistent with their desire to believe things. Do Nordlinger and the other National Review political experts really not know about this episode, obviously much more consequential than some admittedly creepy though entirely trivial moment in a celebrity "pledge" video:

According to the [Justice Department] OIG report released today, Angela Williamson, a deputy to Monica Goodling at the [Bush] DOJ, was intimately involved in her bosses' scurrilous hiring practices, attending interviews and often conducting interviews herself. Here's a sampling of the same questions that Goodling:

After Goodling resigned, Williamson typed from memory the list of questions Goodling asked as a guide for future interviews. Among other questions, the list included the following:

Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.

[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.

Prior to Goodling herself testifying before the House Judiciary Committee about her screening of prospective DOJ hires to make certain they were sufficiently devoted to serving George Bush, she shared with a Justice Department official this vow: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this president." And she didn't have a "secular mind." Even as Attorney General, Alberto Gonazles actually thought his "client" was the President. The entire DOJ was structured to ensure that its employees, including prosecutors required to act with apolitical independence, were what they called "loyal Bushies." Pledging "to be of service to George W. Bush" was the prime mandate of the Justice Department, which is why it was headed for his second term by Bush's most loyal servant.

Beyond the DOJ, huge swaths of the right-wing movement were devoted to an unprecedented veneration of George Bush. A whole industry on the Right was created to convert him into a warrior-deity, including truly creepy reverence books by National Review writers (see here for various illustrations). Some on the Right actually speculated that God intervened in our elections because he had hand-picked Bush to be our leader. Even Bill Kristol admitted that the GOP had turned into little more than a Bush-centered personality cult, telling the New York Times: "Bush was the movement and the cause." More than any single, discrete issue, what motivated me to begin writing about political issues was the warped climate of hero worship constructed -- by the Right and the media -- around George Bush as a "War President."

If you search long enough on the Internet, can you find examples of random people or vapid celebrities guilty of excessive Obama worship? Obviously. One can find virtually anything using those methods. But the personalized veneration of George Bush, particularly during his first term, was systematic and engulfing. It was the fuel that drove most of the abuses and transgressions of that era. The New York Times' Elizabeth Bumiller infamously confessed that asking hard questions of Bush was "frightening" due to the prevailing political climate. To read right-wing pundits proclaiming that such a sentiment would never be embraced by a conservative is really remarkable -- only because it's such a powerful testament to the ability of people to just forget and/or completely whitewash even the most recent history.



UPDATE: Indeed, this was a prime example. And the reference there to the newly-named ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer -- former Nixon White House staffer -- recalls this ugly though revealing spectacle.



UPDATE II: So inebriating was the Bush personality cult that DOJ aide Sara Taylor actually said this while testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"I took an oath to the president, and I take that oath very seriously," Sara Taylor said in answer to a question early in the hearing.

And right after a break, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked her if she was sure about that. "Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?" Leahy asked. It was a telling exchange.

That, of course, was a distinction without a difference during the Bush years. Then there were the creepy loyalty oaths to George W. Bush which anyone wanting to attend his speeches were required to sign in order to be admitted. There were also those who were ejected from such events because of ideas they expressed that were critical of the Leader. And for those at National Review who seem to think things are only sufficiently significant to notice when it involves celebrities rather than high government officials, there's this.

More notable than the history-erasing practices of National Review -- that's too commonplace to care much about -- is remembering just how extreme this climate was.

This is too recent for anyone to successfully convince me that as a news junkie I'm just misremembering six years worth of Bush devotion and all the evidence of substantial criticisms have just vanished. You guys are a hoot.