The amusing thing about your ravings on Obama is this sort of stuff has been policy for years under Smirk.
I will agree that Bush has not, at all times, been as open as I would like. HOWEVER, he has sat for HOURS of personal interviews with reporters -- Bob Woodward, in particular, even after Woodward was critical of him in his earlier books. His presidency has been more of an "open book" than any in memory. So, while Bush is not a good public speaker and he knows it and thus avoids the open press conference, he cannot be accused of hiding from the media or stifling dissent.
There is a difference. Bush has never, ever made efforts to stifle dissent. Never.
Time and again he has embraced dissent, he has openly stated that he understands that many people disagree with him and that that is what America is about, and that he wouldn't have it any other way. I don't know if any president, not any I can remember, has been more understanding of and willing to take the dissent as Bush has.
Contrast that with Obama, who has shut down access to media outlets, demanded that FACTUAL campaign ads be pulled, refused to take a position on the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine which is a process underway amongst the Democrats in Congress, and the list could go on.
Consider for a moment Biden's remarks about Obama being "tested" and the ensuing remarks that supporters may not "agree" with how he handles it so they want everyone to stick with them even though they don't agree with Obama's handling of this presumed "crisis"? WTF is that about?
Not only was the remark utterly bizarre in the first place, trying to a priori, defray the dissent on Obama's handling of an incident that hasn't occurred yet, well, that's just downright strange. |
