If conservatives were to be honest, they would straight-up admit that Bush was not a great president. Until Obama took the leadership mantle, Bush had racked up more debt than any U.S. president by far! He expanded entitlements via Medicare, made no real progress on restructuring Social Security or Medicaid, was an advocate of increased home ownership via the Community Reinvestment Act, and deceived the public about his true intentions and justifications for invading Iraq, a war that has not only cost us in blood and treasure, but has weakened our ability and resolve to deal with a far more ominous enemy--Iran. In essence, Bush "greased the skids" for Obama's ascendency.
However, Liberals refuse to admit to the foibles, deceptions, and duplicities of Obama and his cronies. Obama has increased our debt more than Bush did over the course of just 3 years, and it does not matter that the economy has improved minimally as a result. The size and the scope of the debt load translates into nearly $150,000 per federal taxpayer, and that does not include his new budget, nor the fact that sooner or later, our interest rate will increase, destroying our ability to pay down this ever-growing fiscal fiasco. It is a ticking time fashioned by both a Republican and a Democrat. Neither excuses the other.
Moreover, Obama's Department of Justice, under the guidance of Eric Holder, has grown increasingly hostile and opaque with regards to the botched Fast and Furious program, and its insidious abdication of impartiality regarding its oversight of voting fraud issues. The bitter truth is that Obama is the equivalent of his right-wing counterpart, Richard Nixon. Both can be characterized by their thin-skinned, ego-maniacal, and secretive, back-room approach to wheeling and dealing legislation and rhetoric. And, like Nixon, he is one of the most divisive leaders in modern times. He just seems superficially affable enough to get a pass by the media, and in due course, the public.
We could all argue about who is better, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, but the truth is both were fairly centrist presidents. Both Reagan and Clinton understood how to compromise, how to lead, how to get things done. Both received votes from the other side, hence the Reagan Democarts, and Clinton conservatives. But more importantly, we all felt proud as Americans, and we all saw ourselves, rich/poor, black/white, Republican/Democrats, as Americans first, and everything else next. How pitifully far we have fallen. How precipitously low we have dropped. And how shameful it is.
If we were worth our rhetoric and worthy of our passion, we would never again elect a Bush or Obama, each trying reshape the world in their ideological vision, as if the ends justified any means. They do not. They never will. That is not how an open, democratic republic conducts itself if it wants to prosper.
In the end, I will cast my vote for whatever pathetic choice was made in the primaries for the Republican candidate. I do so not because I am passionate and proud to do so. I could say I am just voting for the lesser of two evils, and this rationalization still has a kernel of truth. And I suppose those who support Obama will do the same. But if I were really honest, I would reframe this belief as voting for the "lesser of two evils."and so would those who cast their vote for Obama. If we really want true change, we will seek a different kind of candidate in the future. But that would require being honest with each other.
Any takers?
