Fmr. President Bush Punches, Body Slams Obama Look-a-Like Repeatedly, Forces Him to Say 'Uncle'

That's what we call a misleading headline. That, in fact, never happened. Last night President George W. Bush spoke in Erie, Penn. last night, and after saying repeatedly that he was not going to criticize his successor, President Obama, the headline "Bush takes swipe at Obama policies" is what ran.

While mine would be a wild exaggeration, and the Washington Times would be a mild one inferred from the policies and principles of a man who overtly is of a different political persuasions than the person who has his job now, I think you get my point.

On the front end, let me admit that defending George W. Bush is like repairing a dishwasher while it's running; next to impossible. While Democrats joyously revile him as an anthropomorphized plague, Republicans and conservatives often squirm at a man who expanded government at a rate of 3 percent per year. His low polling numbers are a combination of that, as well as the scorn of independents who see his slow-talkin' ways and think "yokel."

I don't plan on defending his presidency or even he himself. But in this instance, on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, in Pennsylvania, Bush is getting a raw deal.

The Times purports that Bush took two stances — one, defending his administration, specifically with regard to terrorism, and two, his endorsement of the private sector — and posed them as a direct affront to President Obama.

The latter point is odd to me: President Obama himself has said that the private sector is well and good, he just wants to be able to compete with it to "keep it honest." When someone endorses that private sector, how is that necessarily swiping at Obama. Let's not turn our 44th into a socialist just yet.

But I'm not naive, either. Quotes like "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money," said by Bush, aren't pointed blindly. But it's a bold assertion to say that he's lampooning Obama directly. Sure, he may be taking a swipe at Democrats, the leader (and face and lifeblood and perhaps only hope) of which is Obama, but what would you expect a Republican to do?

Simply because Bush is not going to criticize his successor does not mean that he is going to give everything Obama and Democrats do a ringing, bright-eyed, cheery endorsement. The man's still a Republican. He's not dead.

Which leads me to the former: Why on earth wouldn't a former president defend his administration?

It's in stark contrast to the one currently in office. "Change" has certainly come, nominally and otherwise. President Obama is not going to do things the way President Bush did this, in many instances, thankfully. One is a Republican, one is a Democrat. You could go point for point, but I don't think a conservative is going to stand for Bush being compared to Obama, or a liberal standing for Obama being compared to Bush.

I don't know what to make of it. I hate cliches like "liberal media," mainly because I work in a very objective, no-nonsense newsroom (opinion columnists aside; while we're awkwardly comparing Obama and Bush, we could be having the same conversation about Brummett and Sanders). Also, I'm pretty sure the Times is known for being more conservative than liberal, which would make "liberal media" an odd pickle in that case. It just seems to pit Bush in a no-win situation. He either agrees with the populace, who is gaga for Obama, and throws his own administration under the bus, or he sticks up for his tenure, making it look like a slap in Obama's face.

President Bush can be blamed for a lot of things. I don't think this is one of them. Especially after his repeated statement: I'm not going to criticize the current administration. I'm sure this will be criticized as apologetic toward Bush's Administration. It's not. Just this one evening's speech, and the coverage therein.