A fellow had this to say, among other things:
….we had already seen two tax cuts sold on massively, easily documented false pretenses; a war launched with constant innuendo about a Saddam-Osama link that was clearly false, and with claims about WMDs that were clearly shaky from the beginning and had proved to be entirely without foundation. We’d also seen vast, well-documented dishonesty and politicization on environmental policy. Oh, and Abu Ghraib was already public knowledge.
And to hammer home his point:
Bloggers like Atrios or Kos? Again, if you read their archives what’s striking is how sane they come off compared with the “serious” voices of the time.
OK, so now six months in to a liberal’s panacea, we’ve seen at least two tax increases, with more promised via allowing those tax cuts he complains about to expire. The current President, who echoed the exact sentiments of Paul Krugman, Atrios, and Kos, is now doing exactly what Bush did in both Iraq and Afghanistan that Krugman, Atrios, and Kos have complained about. If it was so wrong and they were not a threat, why is he staying there “indefinitely”? This same president is also getting hammered on the issues of WMD’s in, you guessed it, the Axis of Evil Bush complained about that Atrios and Kos assured us were just political scare tactics. We’ve also seen, in six months, no doubt, vast, well-documented dishonesty and politicization on environmental policy as Obama has had numerous appointments withdrawn due to legal issues, and has already reneged on several environmental promises he made while campaigning. It’s gotten the point where even Greenpeace is panning Obama. He has also expanded Bush’s wiretapping policy, set up a White House tip line, moved investigations into the domestic enforcement agency, requested expanded internet surveillance, cozied up to Cuba while distancing Israel, totally undermined our international surveillance capabilities ala Jamie Gorelick, proposed a socialized health care model apparently no one wants, completely sold out to unions, and, his first budget will have more deficit than all eight of Bush’s combined. I mean, look at this again:
I’m sure I’ve overlooked other issues.
And, what makes it even more remarkable, he’s done all that in six months. Krugman had to list all eight Bush years to get a much smaller list.
Given all that, it makes complete sense to distrust anything the Obama administration says. That’s not reflexive, it’s rational. I resent Krugman’s insinuation because in order to believe that a completely biased opinion is rational is to assume all other opinions are irrational. To pick only certain issues to justify a rational conclusion is, well, not rational. That’s biased. Let’s look closer, shall we? First, the definition of bias:
a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
endowed with the faculty of reason:
Now, if a person only allows one set of evidence to be presented to make the argument they’re rational, is that using reason, or, is that showing a particular tendency or inclination?
Now, the difference between me claiming I’m rational and using the same argument to show Krugman is reflexive is because I told people Obama would do these things last year. I’m not reflexive. I am rational in that I am simply re-iterating a reasoned assumption I made in the past and commenting on issues as they happen. Krugman just bitches and whines about everything Bush, even well after Bush is gone. That’s just not rational. He’s got bigger problems to deal with than prosecuting people long gone. But, he can’t do that. He’s too reflexive. Probably because the present sucks so bad.