Since the passing of George, various Neocons and assorted misfits, have stated or favorably compared the new president to the old. Obama, it would seem, represented a continuation of policies of George Bush, according to these former followers of George. But this comparison is absurd and is utterly self-serving. Let’s check in with an with the first of a series on the White House under new management. First up, Signing Statements:
Bush attached the signing statements to legislation that his administration saw as unreasonable or unconstitutional limits on executive power. However, Obama's White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, likened the move to Bush asking "that laws be disallowed simply by executive fiat."
Bush used his statements to circumvent Congress' ban on torture and prohibitions against using federal tax dollars to build a permanent military base in
"I think the previous administration issued hundreds and hundreds of signing statements that specifically entailed ... through those signing statements, that people disregard portions of legislation or the intent of Congress," Gibbs said.
This is at the crux of what made Bush a miserable failure. Bush confused his short term partisan interest to the long term interests of the Republic. If Bush did not want to follow the Law, he declared that the Law did not apply to him. If it felt good at the time, he did it. If it was inconvenient, he ignored it.
To me this is not staying the course.