Do you hear that sound? It's the wail of buyer's remorse coming from liberals ever since realizing Obama's policies are George Bush's policies, just bigger.
On the Deficit
Bush's deficit-swelling $700 Billion Bailout was topped by Obama's $787 Billion "Stimulus" package. Liberals have a love-hate relationship with deficit spending - they love it when they do it, hate it when Republicans do it.
Liberal economist Paul Krugman hurled vile insults at President Bush over deficits from 2001 to 2005. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, Krugman reversed his position, sounding like that liar character John Lovitz played on Saturday Night Live: "Yea, yea, deficit spending. That's the ticket! I was for it all along! Deficit spending!"
During last year's campaign the left swore "deficits are bad - so vote for Obama." Obama took office and became the Babe Ruth of deficit spending. Even though Bush shrunk the deficit in years 2005 though 2007, the left scorched him when his 2008 deficit topped $400 billion. Obama's first budget will have a hell plummeting $1.75 trillion deficit, four times bigger than Bush' worst year. His own optimistic numbers admit Obama's best year in a decade will have a $600 Billion deficit. Obama is Bush on steroids.
On Market Economies
Laugh along with me at these words from Paul Krugman:
"It’s a bit disappointing to see the Obama administration engaging in this sort of market-worship — hailing markets as a Good Thing in themselves, rather than as an often but not always useful means to an end. But I have reason to think that unlike the Bushies, they don’t really believe it; it’s just politics."
Oh I see, Paul. Rather than admitting Obama's policies are George Bush's policies, you think Obama looks better if you just call him a liar. With friends like you...
Hocus Pocus Habeas Corpus - watch Obama pull Bush's policies out of his hat.
Obama hugely disappointed the left last week. His clearest campaign promise was to part with the Bush Administration on how to process captured enemy combatants from the war on terror. The left thought Obama would give them a speedy trial, convict them or let them go.
After the election the left stood before Obama, liberal bleeding hearts a-flutter, awaiting the announcement that enemy combatants would be tried. What did they hear? "We will no longer call them 'enemy combatants,'" said Obama. First the liberals yelled,"Yeaaaa!" then they said, "Wait...what? They aren't getting trials?"
Then, copying Bush's position at Gitmo, Obama argued that terrorists held at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan can't access our courts either. The ACLU called Obama's policies just a continuation of Bush policies, and the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York said, "This is really a case of old wine in new bottles."
It's not the name of the jail or the place that interests the left, it's the trials. That's why the Democrats in Congress just cut off funding for Gitmo closure. They want to know what Obama will do with the prisoners.
So last week Obama finally told them: Enemy combatants, er, "guests of the Navy" will be subjected to "prolonged detention." Some won't get a trial, because we can't prove they did anything wrong. Instead, they will be held because Obama thinks they might do something wrong in the future.
Holy Habeas Corpus!!!! Jailed for something they haven't done but might do? Proving she's no Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow on her show played it fair - she excoriated Obama as a human rights violator. She amusingly compared his idea to the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report where he is a government agent arresting people for crimes before they commit them. Maddow conceded that in the liberal view of things, Obama is worse than Bush on the issue. As I said - Obama is Bush on steroids, and the left is just finding that out.
On The Wars
Obama the candidate introduced legislation to have all combat troops out of Iraq by March 2008. Bush said 2010. Obama the President pushed his date 2 1/2 years down the road to - August 2010, adopting Bush's date. He opposed Bush's troop surge in Iraq, but upon becoming President, ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan.
Human Rights In China
A common cry of the left when Bush's Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would have economic talks with China was that Rice should talk more about human rights violations. Obama's Secretary of State Clinton recently said this of China: "But our pressing on those issues [human rights] can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis." That's exactly the Bush position.
On Gay Equal Rights and Military Service
The left made an assumption about Obama - being the first Kenyan-American President, he would equalize rights in all areas they appear unequal. Boy are they disappointed. It's easy to be for equal rights for your own group, but it takes courage to extend rights to a group you aren't in. Obama doesn't have the courage.
Miss California Carrie Prejean highlighted that she, Obama and Bush have the same view of legal marriage - it's a guys and dolls thing. California's Proposition 8 vote proved that while Gays spent much time hating Bush's proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage, they should have hated more the Democrat (and Obama) position of putting the definition of marriage to a vote.
Most studies put the gay population in America at about 3%. So Obama wants to let the other 97% vote on whether gays should have equal rights? Brilliant. Nice job, Barack. Of course they'll lose the vote. By the way, Mr. President, will you be allowing white people to vote on black people's civil rights? Latinos to vote on Asians' civil rights?
On Gays in the Military Obama ran on desegregation. Now that he's President, he says he's "too busy right now." Too busy? There is a pending bill in Congress the Democrats can pass and then all it will take is the apparently time-consuming effort of signing his name. At least Bush never told gays he doesn't have time to care about them - Obama already has.
You have to wonder, if Obama's campaign slogan was, "I'm going to do what George Bush did, only bigger," would anyone have voted for him?