A Uniter, Not A Divider

Scott Wilson has an article in the Washington Post, wringing his hands that President Obama shouldn't pin our economic crisis on George W. Bush. The premise is that Obama campaigned as someone who wanted to rise above partisanship.

Piffle. Rising above partisanship doesn't mean you ignore the plain truth of the matter. Nor does it mean taking the blame for eight years of failure and mismanagement. That would be a cushy job, huh? You have someone who burns down the house, then you step into the rubble and say, "Look at the house that I destroyed!"

Plus, there's an obvious problem with part of the premise of this paragraph:

Upon entering the White House in 2001, Bush pinned the lackluster economy on his predecessor, using the "Clinton recession" to successfully argue in favor of tax cuts that won some Democratic support. But for Obama, who built his candidacy on a promise to rise above Washington's divisive partisan traditions -- winning over many independent voters and moderate Republicans in the process -- blaming his predecessor holds special risks. [my emphasis]

As I recall the 2000 election, George Bush declared himself "a uniter, not a divider," and he promised to 'reach across the aisle' much as he had done as governor of Texas. He didn't come into office promising to govern as a hyper-partisan. How fast we forget!