Saturday, April 11, 2009

The Bush Doctrine

After kicking around the Great Pizza Imbroglio around in my mind for awhile, I decided that I needed to invoke my version of the Bush Doctrine.

The GPI is this: while campaigning, Obama had a pizza from a place called Pi in Saint Louis, and liked it a lot. Recently, he had a pizza dinner for people at the White House, and the chef from Pi came and made the pizzas. According to anti-Obamans, the country paid for the chef to do this, flying him out and back. According to pro-Obamans, the chef's company paid for the flight, and Obama paid the chef for the materials.

First cut, I thought that of course the Obamans were right. How could it be otherwise? Obama doesn't do sleazy things!

Then I thought: the Bush Doctrine. If Bush had done this, would I believe that the country didn't pay for it? No, I had to admit, I wouldn't. At the very least, I'd believe that the chef was flogged out and back in a sleek corporate jet, with the company that owned the jet a major contributor that would be repaid by getting a juicy Federal contract somewhere down the line. And the supplies? Well, the White House would of course bear the cost of supplying the materials because "the White House is responsible for supplying meals to the President and his guests". I'd never believe that there wasn't some impropriety, because, heck, this is Bush! That's how he operates! And even if it could be absolutely shown that there was no back-channel favoritism, no one-hand-washes-the-other, none of that -- I'd still be irritated by it, still feel that it should not have happened, because this is Bush!

Well, substitute Obama for Bush in that chain, and that's likely what the anti-Obamans are thinking. There had to be impropriety, somewhere -- and even if there wasn't, he shouldn't have done it. Looks elitist, and all that. And, after all, this is Obama! They don't trust him any more than I trusted Bush, and they don't care for his policies any more than I liked Bush's. Different ideologies entirely.

Sigh. Can we ever agree if we find it hard to even understand?

No comments: