Before Bush - Introduction

While reading through the posts on Twitter on the day of President Obama's inauguration and the glee with which his first policy announcements were greeted an idea began to form in the Tiny Pundit's brain. Granted this is not all that original an idea as many better writers than I have attempted to influence the tide of information about the Bush administration in light of the historical facts that apply to the execution of the office of the president.

My theory is that many Twitter users are so young they can't remember much about politics before Bush became president, and have been fed a steady diet of the mainstream media nonsense that leaves out any historical context when discussing policy. Of course, now that Obama has been crowned, er, inaugurated, the media have no end of comparison with historical figures such as Roosevelt and Lincoln. But the MSM sure won't provide a complete picture of the extraordinary executive power these men wielded in times of emergency.

Suspending Habeas corpus? Interring foreign born citizens or Americans of questionable ancestry? Torture? Extraordinary rendition? Readers may be surprised to learn that these policies are not the work of Bush & Co. Indeed, there are a lot of Things that Existed Before Bush that bear telling, even though the sacrosanct accepted version of history is ALL that is evil took office January 20, 20001 and all is well now.

In the coming days -- or weeks -- I will post a tidbit per day (on average) attempting to enlighten my young friends on Twitter. This series will be titled Before Bush. Each day's piece will be pithy and easily digested but will include a link back to this post to provide more of that needed "context" so lacking in MSM reporting.

Obama Rhetoric vs. Blago's Style

Listening to Blago defend himself live on the radio just now, I was struck by the great communication ability he displayed (I couldn't see it, obviously, but it sounded extemporaneous). It was simple and direct, although not the least believeable, he made it all sound so plausible. This is in sharp contrast to Barack Obama, who I consider a very poor deliverer of speeches and a horrendous creater of off-the-cuff remarks.

Why does everyone say he gives a great speech? I have never heard it, and if not for the shrieking of Hilary he would have been the worst of the lot in the Democratic primary. I listened -- and how can you avoid him, really -- to his speech on race, his convention speech and various pronouncements since then. I never liked one of them. The Emperor has no game.

His pacing is wooden and ponderous, his style bloated and self-important. (Not to mention his unscripted remarks have more huhs and ums than a sixteen-year-old's telephone conversation.) He remains in campaign mode, which means he can not provide specifics or clear direction. Even a few days ago, in saying we have moved beyond terms like small government and big government to an era of smart government. What does that mean? It's political cotton candy. It is light and fluffy and sweet and absolutely devoid of substance. Unless Mark Steyn is correct, and it means "smart" is the next in a series that goes from "small" to "big" and continues growing.

Every speech Obama gives is a string of meaningless phrases stitched together with his egotistical rhetorical flourishes, to my ear. It's lawyer talk without the benefit of actually having to have made convincing arguments before a jury. Like 48% of American voters, I remain unconvinced Obama knows what he's doing or is willing to tell us what he will do. We'll see in 12 days.