Comparing and Contrasting

What the Times hated in 2000, it now likes in 2008

By Erick Posted in | | Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Let us compare and contrast.

Here is the New York Times covering Governor Bush in 2000.

Mr. Bush and his advisers have made clear that one of the litmus tests the person will have passed is that he or she can be utterly faithful to the governor.

Now here is the Times on Senator Obama.

Mr. Obama’s style so far is marked by … his selection of a small group of advisers who have exhibited discipline and loyalty in carrying out his priorities.

It gets better. Keep reading . . .

On Bush:

Publicly acknowledged disagreements? Leaks? These are almost nonexistent in Bush world

On Obama:

Mr. Obama’s style so far is marked by an aversion to leaks and public drama ….

On Bush:

''I feel absolutely free to disagree with him,'' said Karen P. Hughes, the campaign's director of communications. Other advisers said that they, too, spoke their minds around Mr. Bush, but that the vigorous debates behind closed doors stayed there.

On Obama:

He reads widely and encourages alternative views in policy-making discussions, but likes to keep the process crisp. He is personally even-keeled, but can be prickly when small things go wrong.

More on Bush:

The joining of delegated authority to accountability is the theme that runs through Bush's ideas about policy, politics and governance.

And Obama:

He delegates many decisions, and virtually all tasks, to a core group that oversees a sprawling, yet centralized operation in his Chicago campaign headquarters

In 2000, the left called Bush inexperienced and highlighted his numerous verbal gaffes.

In 2008, the left has decided that they need their own George Bush to win.

About the only difference I can find between the two based on the New York Times's coverage is Bush's propensity to keep people around too long versus Obama's propensity to throw people under the bus the moment anyone on the right coughs funny.

One almost expects Obama to talk about nu-cue-lar weapons.

H/T to Protein Wisdom

« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapseComments (14) | Betraying Free Speech.Comments (12) »
Comparing and Contrasting 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

When the owner of the New York Yankees is accused of being a bombastic, dynastic, profiteering megalomaniac in Boston, the Bostonians cheer and the New Yorkers jeer. When the owner of the Boston Red Sox is accused of being a bombastic, dynastic, profiteering megalomaniac in New York, New Yorkers cheer and Bostoners jeer. This is a little bit like that.

Yay us! Prepare for humiliation. It shall be upon you at the designated hour.

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.

The last thing Obama would direct the press to say about him is that he's not a delegator, because then he would have to be a micromanager, a-la Jimmy Carter. And even though Carter is endorsing him he doesn't want to be seen as the New Carter, he wants to be the Democrat Reagan.

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.

is that one has a D after his name and the other has an R.
Obama's guiding principle: "I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks."

You mean the New York Times is bias toward the Democrat!

I just posted an article on
Why Won't Obama Debate McCain. Check it out.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service