No, Bill O’Reilly, in 8 years, Bush was never cut a break. What makes you think Obongo should not get the same treatment?
Is it because you think that, as a (half) black, he should be held to a lower standard?
...in order for these two sentences to logically follow each other, it requires showing BOR to hypercritical and utterly derogatory of Dubya as the sitting POTUS; and then on the other hand, going soft on Obama...we know that not to be true, Bill was measured in his commentary on Bush, as he is towards Obama...
...commentary on a POTUS is, of course, grounds for sharp political discourse...as long as that sharp discourse has a rational core of thought behind it...I find it odd that someone be pilloried simply because his commentary is not sufficiently derogatory...
The point of the article is not to decide whether BOR has treated either Bush or Obama fairly. I’m sure he thinks that he has been totally fair to both of them.
It is BOR’s assertion that OTHERS have not treated Obama fairly.
I pointed out that Bush was savaged in the media for 8 long years, and that Obama has been handled with kid gloves in his 5 years.
Outside the media bubble, however, Obama’s treatment has been less friendly, and in my opinion, far more realistic given the facts that we know about what he’s done, who he’s aligned himself with, and what he believes.
BOR seems to have a problem with this disparity, seeming to prefer the MSM whitewash over the factual approach of the alternative media.
I merely asked the question as to whether BOR thinks that Obama should be treated more kindly because he’s black, and more specifically that he’s the “first black” in that particular office. That’s what “soft racism” is all about.
BOR is not being “pilloried” because of what he has said about Obama, good or bad. You can agree or disagree with his opinions as you choose.
Rather, it is his desire to impose his standards on others that is the problem here.