McGurn: The Post-Gracious President

William McGurn explores Bammy’s incessant Bush Bashing and finger-pointing in a WSJ op/ed today.

Nine months after Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, his most adamant critics must concede he’s delivered on “change.” And we see it in our first post-gracious presidency.  obama-angry1

The most visible manifestations of the new ungraciousness are the repeated digs the president and his senior staffers continue to make against George W. Bush. Recently, the administration has given us two fresh examples. The first is about Afghanistan, the other about the economy.

On Afghanistan, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff went on CNN’s “State of the Union” earlier this month to discuss the presidential decision on Afghanistan that everyone is waiting for. “It’s clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that’s adrift,” said Rahm Emanuel. “That we’re beginning at scratch, and just from the starting point, after eight years.” Translation: If we screw up Afghanistan, blame Mr. Bush.

The other came from Mr. Obama himself, speaking at various Democratic fund-raisers last week. “I don’t mind cleaning up the mess that some other folks made,” the president said. “That’s what I signed up to do. But while I’m there mopping the floor, I don’t want somebody standing there saying, ‘You’re not mopping fast enough.'”

This is a frequent Obama complaint. The logic is clear if curious: While it’s OK to blame Mr. Bush for spending too much, it’s not OK to point out that Mr. Obama is already well on track to spend much more.

Far from one-off asides, Mr. Obama’s jabs at his predecessor have been a common feature of his speeches, fund-raisers and the like. They seem especially to pop up whenever Mr. Obama discovers some decision he must make is not as easy as he’d thought. And they date back to the first moments of his presidency.

After a perfunctory thank you to Mr. Bush, a newly sworn-in President Obama declared that Americans had gathered for his inaugural “because we have chosen hope over fear,” that his administration would “restore science to its rightful place,” and that he would never allow America to “give [our ideals] up for expedience’s sake.” In other words, President Bush had chosen fear over hope, was being “expedient” rather than defending the nation, and had chosen religious fundamentalism over science when making decisions in areas such as embryonic stem-cell research.

I recommend a full read.

6 thoughts on “McGurn: The Post-Gracious President

  1. Well there is a decided lack of maturity in the White House. Also the recent Fox bashing and attempts to intimidate the insurance industries as well as the US Chamber of Commerce show us that there are no adults making decisions over there.

    How the hell did that guy make it to the White House?

      • vagabond and loppyd, I personnally called called Mark yesterday after hearing him on Michael Grahams show. He is a young entrepreneur and is determined to keep the flag up : ). I spoke to him for 10-15 minutes and told him DONOT take down that flag. He spoke in generalities but said that the complainers had similar surnames. I did not get an email address for him but if you call the gym I’m sure he will take your call of support!…

        p.s. Loppyd check your email please, I have the FU52 you liked. : )

    • Remember the old Mass. tourism promo “The spirit of America is thespirit of Massachusetts”? Somehow I do not think that the Adams’s would agree..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s