Five years ago. Barack Obama was running for president for the first time. George W. Bush was president, and Obama was running as the anti-Bush. Everything about his pitch to voters was essentially, “Bush has messed everything up, so I’m going to give you hope and change by doing everything differently.”
Five years later, what’s really different?
Bush supporters would protest that Obama is far worse than their man. They have a visceral hatred for Obama, because he represents everything they hate. They see Bush as tough-minded and patriotic, whereas they see Obama as a weak peacenik who’s giving everything to welfare recipients.
Obama supporters also protest, because they are certain that Bush was far worse than the man they saw as a savior. They saw Bush as stupid and war-like, whereas they see Obama as smart and kind-hearted. They see Bush as hateful to minorities and immigrants, but Obama is generous and is a leader who represents the country’s best values.
When it comes to actual governing and results, both groups are wrong. If you ignore their rhetoric to their own parties’ voters, you find they have much more in common that you’d think. I’ve been saying this for years, but people in the mainstream of the political system are now saying the same thing.
In a new article from the Associated Press this week, there’s a look at how these two men who are so different in ideology, personality and so forth have ended up with such similar policies.

Unconscious programming makes us eager to believe our own lies
Just $12 fed mom and her girls, but bigger challenges lie ahead
We live in Reverse World, where black is white and good is evil
Why do we accept ‘one size fits all’ rules that force us to fight each other?
You’re not watching real news; you’re watching a scripted show
Join me Tuesday for some live radio — if you can stomach an hour of me
If you can’t change your life story, that narrative will become destiny
I don’t like most people in TV ads, but I can’t tell if it’s them or me