Among the Obama apologists, there are two (among other) pillars that are so not working for me at this point (if they ever did). First is the he-did-not-really-promise-that argument, implying that what I see as failure to perform is really a matter of conflating his ideas with a conception that he might act upon any of them. Closing Guantanamo, for example, was an idea; chiding him for not actually doing it is being naïve and – well – petulant. Since Obama did not actually say he would be a rabid crusader for Universal Health Care, it would be unfair to be disappointed that he (and his pit bull Rahm) instead orchestrated a giveaway to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. He didn’t say he would do the former and he didn’t promise not to do the latter.
Second – well, at least he isn’t Bush. The technical argument to that should be that Not-Being- Bush is setting the bar so low that a snake could crawl over it. Unfortunately, the argument is now more like - in what way is he Not-Bush?
No comments:
Post a Comment