Posted by Wordsmith on 5 October, 2009 at 12:00 pm. 33 comments already!

Former President George W. Bush embraces President Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, after Obama’s inaugural address at the inauguration ceremony in Washington, January 20, 2009.
REUTERS/Jason Reed

Suck it up, liberals…What’s been good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Democrats have been licking Obama’s Copenhagen wounds by barking at conservatives for “cheering” the political Olympic-sized debacle as a rooting against America. Republicans are now being accused of “being unpatriotic“, because they want the president’s policies to fail.

Some of the Copenhagen criticism against conservatives has merit (I’m glad Obama suffered politically for this ill-conceived trip). Much of it is just plain warped, however, as there are also honest reasons why all Americans should be happy Chicago lost the Olympic bid to play host:

the U.S., dodged a bullet:

The common rejoinder to spiraling costs is that the Olympics make money for host cities. But the record is somewhat spottier than boosters admit. Athens and Beijing lost billions. Montreal, which hosted the games in 1976, took 30 years to pay off its loans. Los Angeles and Seoul made a tidy profit. Atlanta and Sydney broke even. It also depends on how you count: Is building a stadium factored into the cost? How about improving the subway? Expanding the housing stock? All this can leave a city with new and gleaming infrastructure — or a bunch of costly new houses no one wants to buy and stadiums no one wants to use.

Also read this from WaPo.

Chicago’s lucky it lost.

Democrats have been distorting the fierce opposition to their party’s push for healthcare reform (teabaggers and townhall protesters as uninformed scaremongers, birthers, conspiracists and racists…”the mob”…).

Democrats have been lamenting about how “Hope” and “Change” are being derailed because those “mean, racist Republicans” stand in the way as the “if he’s for it, we’re against it” Party.

Isn’t this what Democrats did to President Bush for 8 years of opposition? Personal as well as policy attacks? Distortions and smears?


Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gestures prior to the inauguration ceremony, January 20, 2009.

Democrats are crying foul over the Hitler comparisons to President Obama. Where were they on this obscenity for the previous 8 years?

I agree, though: The Obama-Hitler comparisons are currently, unfair and inaccurate…

….At least Hitler got the Olympics to come to his city. (*Baddum bump!*)

When President Bush exercised, it was deemed “obsessive” and “creepy”:

the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy.

Given the importance of his job, it is astonishing how much time Bush has to exercise.


Bush can bench press 185 pounds five times, and, before a recent knee injury, he ran three miles at a 6-minute, 45-second pace. That’s better than I could manage when I played two sports in high school. And I wasn’t holding the most powerful office on Earth. Which is sort of my point: Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement?

Maureen Dowd:

I like to exercise, but W. is psychopathic about it.

When President Obama exercises
, it’s a source for inspiration and admiration:

the Washington Post delivered a front-page paean to Barack Obama’s workout habits. The 1,233-word ode to O’s physical fitness read more like a Harlequin romance novel than an A-1 news article.

Sighed smitten reporter Eli Zaslow, “The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.” Drool cup to the newsroom, stat.

Zaslow imparted us with vital information about buff Bam’s regimen: “Obama has gone to the gym for about 90 minutes a day, for at least 48 days in a row.” The Washington Post enlightened us with more gushing commentary from Obama friends and associates, who explain how, as the subtitle of Zaslow’s opus put it, “Gym Workouts Help Obama Carry the Weight of His Position.”

“Progressives” were fuming over the financial costs of President Bush’s inaugural:

In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.

Yet according to a mostly underreported Washington Post poll this week, a strong majority of Americans — 66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans — would have preferred a “smaller, more subdued” inauguration, given the ongoing war in Iraq. In other words, Bush’s overblown celebration ranks as one of the few political issues that most Americans agree on — a phenomenon the press ignored.

Gee…given the huge financial crisis our country is in, did Salon also think to criticize President Obama’s lavish inaugural spending? No. But their side rallied around the defense of it.

President Bush was criticized for travel expenses to taxpayers. So then, what’s wrong with applying the same to President Obama?

Bush supposedly “ignored” his generals. And now that it’s Obama in office, it’s now okay to criticize the generals he may disagree with? To the point of arguing what uniform dress McChrystal should have worn in his 25 minute meeting with the president?

When will President Obama get criticized for not attending military funerals?

Prior to President Obama’s “unprecedented” address to the Muslim world, President Bush said much the same, yet received nowhere near the accolades, let alone fawning gushes and swoons. Instead, he was accused of launching a crusade against Muslims because “God told him to”.

Democrats mercilessly hammered Bush on spending and the ballooning deficit; but now that it’s “their guy” in the Oval Office, suddenly, like children in a candy store, it’s cool once again to cheerlead “runaway spending” (note to American voters: The answer to spending control is never NEVER to put more Democrats into office)? If the size of the government spending under 2 terms of Bush was bad, that okays Obama’s quadrupling of it in his first year of office? Whaaa-?! Ok, so we’ll spend our way out of recession– so long as it’s Obama and not Bush. Remember: Democrats are going to own this one (not that they won’t still blame Bush for it, of course).

So much of the opposition to President Bush was about partisan politics over patriotic opposition. And now that the shoe is on the other foot, liberals can know what it’s been like on the receiving end of their hyperbole, their hysteria, shrillness, and partisanly deranged opposition to all things Bush.

Welcome to being in political power. Enjoy it while it lasts.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x