The double standard is Bush vs. other Republicans

I'm no political scientist, but I've made an interesting personal discovery over the last few months. Lately we've been hearing a lot about a "double standard" for Democrats. The most recent incident is when Joe Wilson, the congressman from South Carolina screamed "You Lie!" to President Obama during a joint session. Republican pundits argued the Democrats were feigning disgust at Wilson in spite the fact that they had booed Bush during a previous State of the Union address. "There is a double standard for these communist, liberal, whackjobs" paraphrases much of what you heard on Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh show.

Anyway, as I listen to Republicans complain that Democrats gave no respect to Bush, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I do have a double standard because I make a sharp distinction between George Bush and other Republicans. As quick evidence of this, at the start of the 2008 presidential election, I was convinced that John McCain was the best candidate (note: that says the best candidate, not the best Republican candidate). In fact, early on I actually thought I was going to vote for him, especially if Obama was nominated. My initial criticism of Obama was that he simply lacked experience relative to other candidates, most notably John McCain. But in addition, I remember John McCain as the "Straight Talk Express" and I really enjoyed his candor during the 2000 election run. In terms of political stances, he was much less conservative than other Republicans and he had always highlighted the budget deficit as a top concern which I tend to think is the most important issue. At a minimum, if the government is going to do anything, they should make sure they pay for it over the long term. Despite the rhetoric of Republicans, they have not been fiscally conservative at all.

But then came the South Carolina primary debacle and it totally changed John McCain and his view on politics. When he ran again for president in 2008, John McCain's hands were tied by supporters of George Bush. He had to adopt positions that were incredibly unpopular among independent voters. These independent voters wanted change - in fact, they wanted anything that resembled the opposite of George Bush. But John McCain did not want to distance himself from the conservative base - his experience from 2000 told him that. His choice of running mate absolutely ended his chance for appealing to independent voters, while at the same time strongly solidified his conservative base.

But over time, I think he began to realize what he had signed onto. I think it struck him as he went to rallies across the country and he ran into crazed supporters calling Obama an Arab. On election night, I'll never forget his exasperation as he addressed an Arizona audience who booed President-elect Obama.

The problem was that John McCain did not want to alienate the devout supporters of George W. Bush. But for the life of me, I have never understood why someone of sound mind would ever approve of the job done Bush did. All presidents have made mistakes, no question. Richard Nixon had Watergate, George Bush 41 had no new taxes, and Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky. However, I would argue that while these were serious political mistakes, these things did not have a dramatic effect on the continuing path of America's success (though I'm sure some would debate this.)

Anyway, George Bush was responsible for what I believe are three of the biggest cases of presidential ineptitude seen in my lifetime: (1) he claimed Iraq had WMDs and pissed off the entire world by attacking a defenseless country (oops...sorry people of Iraq), (2) he presided over the biggest economic downturn since the great depression, and (3) in three years, he squandered a federal budget SURPLUS and quickly tallied the biggest deficit ever. Aside from real issues, the man could not give a speech without sounding incompetent. After #1, I was seriously stunned that Bush was ever reelected. Then after #2 and the confirmation that Iraq did NOT in fact, have WMDs (I guess the rest of the world was right), I really began to question how someone could defend Bush.

So I admit it, I actually do have a double standard - one for George Bush and another for other Republicans. Please don't argue that Democrats were not nice to Bush - instead, let's ask why Republicans protect him. To defend Bush's incompetence is like buying a new Hummer for a kid on his 16th birthday, despite the fact that he took out his parent's car (without permission) just two weeks earlier and smashed it up while drinking a case of beer.

Here's my point...If you want to talk about a double standard, your point would be best made by giving me some other example that doesn't involve Bush.