A Note on Hypocrisy

[DiamondDave]

Link to the partisan Salon.com... instant epic fail

The fact is many conservatives, independents, libertarians, and others who voted for Bush also criticized much of what he did.... whether you like to believe it or not

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Example: Obama plays so much golf! Does the guy ever work? (Bush spent more of his presidency on vacation than any other president in our history)

or...

Well, right off the bat, Obama has played more golf in the first nine months than Bush did in his entire first term.

And the hypocrisy belongs to the D's on this because they criticized Bush, but justify Obama without a fuss.

so as you said "ad infinitum" ad absurdum, because all your examples starting with that first one deserve a fair appraisal, and examination, which one doubts you have given them; They are only talking points for the left, and an indication of thin skin.

It's pretty obvious that an incoming administration doesn't just slam the door. The policies (and attitudes) of the preceding administration obviously will carry over. So when Obama is criticized for something that Bush put in motion, the criticism, if any, should depend on what it is. But he is criticized for EVERYTHING. I've never, in my 32 years of following politics (closely) seen the hatred of a president this evident. I blame it on the continuing deterioration of basic education in this country, which includes being intelligently informed on the issues and not just relying on (collectively) your friends' or parents' opinions, your politically slanted blog sites, and especially cult-like shared opinions.

Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

It's Obama's fault that $700 billion went for bank bailouts. But if he hadn't put into motion the bank bailouts (signed by Bush), and we sunk into a depression, that would be all Obama's fault too.

Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. If tens of thousands of small businesses across the country that in many small ways support the auto industry were added to the already increasing small businesses shuttering BECAUSE OF the failed banks, Obama would be blamed for that. I can hear the whining now: Why didn't he doooooooooooo something...??

If Obama had just shrugged and told his supporters that now is not the time to try to do health care reform, millions would turn against him as a "liar" because that was one of his biggest campaign promises.

Same with an economic stimulus package; an energy bill; Afghanistan/Iraq; mending fences across the pond. Had he not attempted to improve on any of those, and each took a turn for the worse, Obama would be blamed for "doing nothing."

So when stupid issues like who played the most golf is presented as something to waste even 2 seconds on, it scares the shit out of me what the mentality of Americans is these days. Grow the **** up, people.

 

[saveliberty]

The increase in criticism is porportional to the level of expectations Mr. Obama brought with him. Promise to change the world view of the US, transparency in government, no lobbyist influence, lower the deficit and close the Iraq war soon, people are going to be a bit more angry when you don't deliver.

 

[Care4all]

Well I can see it...we fought the eaves dropping...breaking the 4th, you guys defended it with, "what are you afraid of if you are not doing anything wrong". we fought the use of water torture, you guys claimed it was not torture, we complained about those being held in Gitmo, without ever being charged with anything and many there who were falsely accused, you guys defended it, we fought the telephone companies doing spying on us Americans and you guys said they were only doing this to terrorists, or something of the sort....we wanted to end the war in Iraq and this was fought as well by you guys...

Now, I realize I am freely using the word "we" and freely using the term, "you guys".....because MOST of you did not post here and neither did i till a year or 2 ago....so I could be generalizing based on my readings of what was going on, on the different boards i was a member of during the Bush reign...

But now, all of those things the dems were bitching about the Dems are freely accepting with Obama and you guys are the ones doing the complaining....taking the spot of the Dems back with Bush.

I don;t believe I am seeing things here or delusional....I see my fellow dems accepting things they did not accept under Bush, and I see the Republicans not accepting things THEY DID accept with president Bush....

If you all can't see this, then it is your problem, not mine...truly not mine....

except that I have caught myself being guilty of the measures i spoke of....but I am willing to admit it and at least I have recognized it, which is the first step to recovery!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea looks like "Hope & Change" has become "It's ok because the other guys did it too" for the Hopey Changey sheeple. I just don't see how it could get any more hypocritical than that stuff. Maybe it's just me?

 

[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.

Example: Obama plays so much golf! Does the guy ever work? (Bush spent more of his presidency on vacation than any other president in our history)

or...

Well, right off the bat, Obama has played more golf in the first nine months than Bush did in his entire first term.

And the hypocrisy belongs to the D's on this because they criticized Bush, but justify Obama without a fuss.

so as you said "ad infinitum" ad absurdum, because all your examples starting with that first one deserve a fair appraisal, and examination, which one doubts you have given them; They are only talking points for the left, and an indication of thin skin.

It's pretty obvious that an incoming administration doesn't just slam the door. The policies (and attitudes) of the preceding administration obviously will carry over. So when Obama is criticized for something that Bush put in motion, the criticism, if any, should depend on what it is. But he is criticized for EVERYTHING. I've never, in my 32 years of following politics (closely) seen the hatred of a president this evident. I blame it on the continuing deterioration of basic education in this country, which includes being intelligently informed on the issues and not just relying on (collectively) your friends' or parents' opinions, your politically slanted blog sites, and especially cult-like shared opinions.

Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

It's Obama's fault that $700 billion went for bank bailouts. But if he hadn't put into motion the bank bailouts (signed by Bush), and we sunk into a depression, that would be all Obama's fault too.

Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. If tens of thousands of small businesses across the country that in many small ways support the auto industry were added to the already increasing small businesses shuttering BECAUSE OF the failed banks, Obama would be blamed for that. I can hear the whining now: Why didn't he doooooooooooo something...??

If Obama had just shrugged and told his supporters that now is not the time to try to do health care reform, millions would turn against him as a "liar" because that was one of his biggest campaign promises.

Same with an economic stimulus package; an energy bill; Afghanistan/Iraq; mending fences across the pond. Had he not attempted to improve on any of those, and each took a turn for the worse, Obama would be blamed for "doing nothing."

So when stupid issues like who played the most golf is presented as something to waste even 2 seconds on, it scares the shit out of me what the mentality of Americans is these days. Grow the **** up, people.

I agree with you on the point that Obama receives the kind of non-stop criticism of every little move usually reserved for departing unpopular presidents if at all, and that there'd be a lot more value to substantive criticism and it unfortunately gets drowned out by "birther" crap. And also that it doesn't really matter what he does, the same 30% will lob endless diatribes at him regardless. But I disagree with your first point.

The substantial and substantive criticism being directed at Obama by those who care about real issues is not merely the stuff of "carry over" attitudes of Obama not yet reversing Bush policies he sweared to abolish. Rather, it's about Obama's quite active implementation of things like continued abuse of the states secrets privileges that actually surpasses any of the egregious invocations used by the Bush DOJ to block judicial review of war crimes and criminal behavior from the cabinet level on down. His signing the largest defense budget in the history of the world when he claimed to be against the War in Iraq and his hawkish stance on escalating the clusterfuck in Afghanistan. His immediate willingness to forgo the public option he promised to fight for. His threat to the UK that if they released documents explicitly detailing the torture of an innocent man in an American black site, the US would cut off intelligence sharing with the UK and put their citizens at risk of terrorist attack. His plans to draw up absurd, Orwellian, extra-legal tribunals to try terrorist suspects when American courts have proven time and again they're more than capable without losing the integrity of US law. Closing Guantanamo, if that ever happens, as a purely symbolic move with detainees simply shipped to Bagram or Whitehorse, law-free prisons in Iraq with even more rampant abuse than Gitmo, etc. etc.

That's not merely carrying over policies inherited from the Bush Administration like the auto industry bailout. Rather, it's actively ensuring that those policies are institutionalized, normalized, and in many cases even worsened all under the banner of "change."

 

[DiamondDave]

Well I can see it...we fought the eaves dropping...breaking the 4th, you guys defended it with, "what are you afraid of if you are not doing anything wrong". we fought the use of water torture, you guys clained it was not torture, we complained about those being held in Gitmo, without ever being charged with anything and many there who were falsely accused, you guys defended it, we fought the telephone companies doing spying on us americans and you guys said they were only doing this to terrorists, or something of the sort....we wanted to end the war in Iraq and this was fought as well by you guys...

Now, I realize I am freely using the word "we" and freely using the term, "you guys".....because MOST of you did not post here and neither did i till a year or 2 ago....so I could be generalizing based on my readings of what was going on, on the different boards i was a member of during the Bush reign...

But now, all of those things the dems were bitching about the Dems are freely accepting with Obama and you guys are the ones doing the complaining....taking the spot of the Dems back with Bush.

I don;t believe I am seeing things here or delusional....I see my fellow dems accepting things they did not accept under Bush, and I see the Republicans not accepting things THEY DID accept with president Bush....

If you all can't see this, then it is your problem, not mine...truly not mine....

except that I have causght myself being guilty of the measures i spoke of....but I am willing to admit it and at least I have reckognized it, which is the first step to recovery!

No.. it was defended because we have intercepted enemy communications during wartime without warrants in every motherfucking war/military action we have fought in

But nice try, Care

No... rules of torture and interrogation are specific and laid out in accordance with who is a military enemy, etc....

But nice try, Care

Enemy combatants who are non-citizens and who were not legally visiting the US are not given our rights....

But nice try, Care

....

And I do not blame Obama for continuing to use Gitmo... I do not complain about Obama for continuing to use the Patriot Act... etc.. nor will I... because as I believed in those things then, I continue to believe in their use now.... that is not being hypocritical.. that is being consistent

...

And I do see ones on all sides, of all party affiliations, being hypocrites... but as stated, it is usually the wingers, the whackos, or the party sheeple (Whether they be Bushbots or Obamabots or whatever else)

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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 ran on a platform of change from the Clinton years, specifically he promised to "Restore Honor To The White House." That certainly went well.

 

[The Rabbi]

But now, all of those things the dems were bitching about the Dems are freely accepting with Obama and you guys are the ones doing the complaining....taking the spot of the Dems back with Bush.

I don;t believe I am seeing things here or delusional....I see my fellow dems accepting things they did not accept under Bush, and I see the Republicans not accepting things THEY DID accept with president Bush....

Where do you see republicans not accepting things they did under Bush? It isn't that we aren't accepting it. It is that we are pointing out that Obama ran on ending whatever policy it was and instead of doing that he has continued it. That doesn't mean we necessarily opposed the policy. Only to point out that what Obama said he would do and what he is actually doing aren't the same at all.

 

[QUENTIN]

Yea looks like "Hope & Change" has become "It's ok because the other guys did it too" for the Hopey Changey sheeple. I just don't see how it could get any more hypocritical than that stuff. Maybe it's just me?

Again, this is a misinterpretation.

There are lots of Democrats who opposed policies under Bush they now hypocritically support and defend under Obama, but they don't do so by claiming Bush did it too. They follow the Administration's lead and try to distance the policies as much as possible from the Bush Admin given his unpopularity, and try to highlight the purely surface or nominal differences in identical policies.

Those who counter a criticism of an Obama action Bush was also guilty of with "Bush did that too, or even moreso" are not defending the policy or Obama but rather taking to task the criticizer for their transparent hypocrisy.

 

[QUENTIN]

But now, all of those things the dems were bitching about the Dems are freely accepting with Obama and you guys are the ones doing the complaining....taking the spot of the Dems back with Bush.

I don;t believe I am seeing things here or delusional....I see my fellow dems accepting things they did not accept under Bush, and I see the Republicans not accepting things THEY DID accept with president Bush....

Where do you see republicans not accepting things they did under Bush? It isn't that we aren't accepting it. It is that we are pointing out that Obama ran on ending whatever policy it was and instead of doing that he has continued it. That doesn't mean we necessarily opposed the policy. Only to point out that what Obama said he would do and what he is actually doing aren't the same at all.

If this were the case, if one were to say "I'm glad Obama's continued to spy on Americans and collect information about them, I'm glad he's invoking state secrets to conceal executive lawbreaking because I think those are good policies... but where's the change? He's a liar and hypocrite for not reversing them like he said he would." It would be a different story.

That's not really what anyone does though. Instead it's "big government, big spending Kenyan" and when it's pointed out that Bush was "big government, big spending too" either the fingers go in the ears or cries of "Appeal to Mom" are the only response.

This has only lessened somewhat among those who now claim to have always been critical of Bush and are suddenly "libertarians" or "independents" despite always voting for and supporting and defending Republicans simply because Bush's presidency turned out to be such a monumental and universally recognized failure that it's much harder to be a loyal Bushie now than it was in '05.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

It unfortunately does happen, not just here. And when it is demonstratable, it should be called out. There's a hilarious TDS chlip calling out a Fox News Anchor on just this issue:
For Fox Sake!

 

[The Rabbi]

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 ran on a platform of change from the Clinton years, specifically he promised to "Restore Honor To The White House." That certainly went well.

Actually it was "restore honor to the Oval Office." The difference is subtle but important.
And he did that. Did you hear about him getting blown by subordinates? Did you see scandals involving campaign funds? Did you see witnesses fleeing the country rather than testify before Congress?
Whatever you want to say about decisions he made you cannot deny that he was successful in restoring the prestige of the presidency. So successful that Democrats now carp how criticizing the president is "unAmerican." Whodathunkit??

 

[DiamondDave]

But now, all of those things the dems were bitching about the Dems are freely accepting with Obama and you guys are the ones doing the complaining....taking the spot of the Dems back with Bush.

I don;t believe I am seeing things here or delusional....I see my fellow dems accepting things they did not accept under Bush, and I see the Republicans not accepting things THEY DID accept with president Bush....

Where do you see republicans not accepting things they did under Bush? It isn't that we aren't accepting it. It is that we are pointing out that Obama ran on ending whatever policy it was and instead of doing that he has continued it. That doesn't mean we necessarily opposed the policy. Only to point out that what Obama said he would do and what he is actually doing aren't the same at all.

If this were the case, if one were to say "I'm glad Obama's continued to spy on Americans and collect information about them, I'm glad he's invoking state secrets to conceal executive lawbreaking because I think those are good policies... but where's the change? He's a liar and hypocrite for not reversing them like he said he would." It would be a different story.

That's not really what anyone does though. Instead it's "big government, big spending Kenyan" and when it's pointed out that Bush was "big government, big spending too" either the fingers go in the ears or cries of "Appeal to Mom" are the only response.

This has only lessened somewhat among those who now claim to have always been critical of Bush and are suddenly "libertarians" or "independents" despite always voting for and supporting and defending Republicans simply because Bush's presidency turned out to be such a monumental and universally recognized failure that it's much harder to be a loyal Bushie now than it was in '05.

Nah... you're not a partisan

Funny thing is many or most conservatives DID criticize Bush's propensity for expanding big government... did criticize his stances taht did not line up with conservative values...

And there are plenty of things that we do not bash Obama for... such as the use of the Partiot Act (as stated before)

As for why we voted for Bush the 2nd time around... quite simple... between him and Kerry... It was obvious.. and I would vote for him again over the likes of Kerry... even if I did not and do not agree with all he stood for and all that he ended up doing... it was still better off in the big picture than what would have happened with Kerry... does that make me or others some huge Bush supporter?? Not in the least... but nice try, winger

 

[The Rabbi]

What Diamond Dave said.

So now the complaint is that Republicans don't criticize Obama enough. Or in the right way. Or something.
Not that Quentin is grasping at straws or anything.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Actually it was "restore honor to the Oval Office." The difference is subtle but important.
And he did that.

Honor involves more than keeping your pants on. Claiming Bush restored honor and dignity to the Office is a claim that can only be made by a true GOP partisan.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Funny thing is many or most conservatives DID criticize Bush's propensity for expanding big government... did criticize his stances taht did not line up with conservative values...

And many of the "Conservatives" in the media defended the expansion of Governmental powers. Specifically, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and others have happily defended the Patriot Act, an enormous expansion of Federal Power, captial "P".

I'm no more comfortable with Obama having those powers than Bush.

 

[DiamondDave]

Funny thing is many or most conservatives DID criticize Bush's propensity for expanding big government... did criticize his stances taht did not line up with conservative values...

And many of the "Conservatives" in the media defended the expansion of Governmental powers. Specifically, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and others have happily defended the Patriot Act, an enormous expansion of Federal Power, captial "P".

I'm no more comfortable with Obama having those powers than Bush.

Again referencing the entertainers, as if they are the policy and decision makers.. or entirely representative of what all conservatives think and do

And please do not confuse the patriot act, which in itself revolves around national defense.. and the expansion of government into areas not kosher with what is in the constitution...

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually it was "restore honor to the Oval Office." The difference is subtle but important.
And he did that.

Honor involves more than keeping your pants on. Claiming Bush restored honor and dignity to the Office is a claim that can only be made by a true GOP partisan.

And denying that he did so merely because you disagreed with his policies is the sign of a party hack.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

And many of the "Conservatives" in the media defended the expansion of Governmental powers. Specifically, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and others have happily defended the Patriot Act, an enormous expansion of Federal Power, captial "P".

I'm no more comfortable with Obama having those powers than Bush.

Again referencing the entertainers, as if they are the policy and decision makers.. or entirely representative of what all conservatives think and do

And please do not confuse the patriot act, which in itself revolves around national defense.. and the expansion of government into areas not kosher with what is in the constitution...

I'm glad you consider Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Coulter as "entertainers". Please be sure to pass that note along to many of the other folks in here that claim to be Conservatives and seem to hang on every word that comes from the mouth of the Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck-Coulter monster.

And yes, the Patriot Act is an expansion of Federal Power. Maintaining otherwise is dishonest. It is hardly the only example either. President Bush was widely hated by Presidential historians, and with good reason, for Executive Order 13233, which thankfully was rescinded by Barack Obama using Executive Order 13489. At least Obama got that much right.