Will Obama Still Be Blaming Bush in 2012? Bet on It
But it’s the “Bush blame” that is really surprising — and disappointing. You would think that, now that they control the White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats would be ready to step up and accept responsibility to lead the country. You would think that voters would demand it. Instead, Democrats have retreated into a defensive position, insisting that none of this is their fault. And voters are going along.
At first blush, it might seem as if this is good news — no, great news — for the Obama White House. Imagine being allowed to foul up one policy initiative after another and not have to take any blame for it. It’s a politician’s dream.
However, there is another side to that coin. Every elected official wants to be popular. That’s a given. But the truth is that there are worst things than being unpopular. Like being thought of as inconsequential. Even if a majority of the electorate doesn’t like you, it’s probably the case that a minority does. Those folks will turn out for you, rally around you, and defend you to critics.
Yet an inconsequential figure might not engender that kind of loyalty. Even those who support his policies aren’t inclined to give him credit for accomplishing anything. For the most part, they’ll react with ambivalence. And who can fault them? After all, the electorate has been conditioned to believe that everything is out of this person’s hands. The good as well as the bad is all the doing of some larger force over which the elected official has absolutely no control whatsoever.
In this case, as long as President Obama keeps repeating — for what he perceives to be short-term political benefit — the mantra that the weak economy, the budget deficit, America’s damaged reputation abroad, the state of the environment, etc., are all the fault of the former president, Americans can be forgiven for not being passionate about the current one.
This could spell trouble for Obama’s reelection hopes in 2012. Ambivalence is not a helpful emotion when it comes to getting people out to the polls. You can bet that Obama’s opponents will be passionate about terminating his employment. If the president’s supporters aren’t just as revved up about extending it, his first term could well be his last.
If that happens, Obama will have only himself to blame.
Wow. I agree with a lot of this.
Thirty years from now, liberals will still be blaming Bush for everything.
When 90% of the media parrot Obama’s rhetoric every day, what do you expect? Goebbels told Hitler, correctly, that, “a big lie told often enough soon becomes the truth.”
and foul up he (obuma) has.
I’m not so sure if I would give very much credit to a poll conducted by CBS/NYT. Perhaps a closer look at the demographics of that poll might give us a better understanding of why those folks are parroting the Obama li(n)e about President Bush. But lets look at some other facts. Many of the programs that President Bush started are simply being continued if not actually expanded by Obama. The war in Iraq that was supposed to be over is far from over and in fact we are more deeply engaged in Afghanistan then ever before. The prison at GITMO that was supposed to closed has not closed. The PATRIOT ACT that Obama railed against is still in place. Drone attacks in Pakistan have been expanded. Terrorists that Obama swore would be tried in civilian court in NYC are not yet and probably never will be tried as he stated. And I think the American people have caught on to Obama’s use of President Bush as a straw man and they don’t like it.
This article ignores the facts almost as much as Congress does when it comes to reforming healthcare.
With the exception of the black race and portions of the extreme radical left crazies and dope heads, Obama has no noteworthy support left.
In less than one year Obama has managed to piss off, scare and enrage 100% of America and almost that much of the world, including the maniacal Islamic Muslims that are of his own blood. In short, he has run out of friends.
Recent elections nationwide and mood polls taken by people and places that matter say one thing crystal clear. Barrack Hussein Obama is going down: hard!
He, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every last Representative and/or Senator that refused to stand up against him are finished. Americans will not let their country be completely destroyed by or further subjected to any more of their insane crap.
Take it to the bank!
The good news vastly outweighs the bad for the Republicans. They have the odds in their favor for minimally the next few election cycles. Ruben Navarrette Jr. is highlighting the ill informed views of the general public—and not necessarily those of likely voters. This is especially the case regarding the off year elections of 2010. Pay attention to the Rasmussen daily tracking poll. It’s the one that really tells you what is going on. The majority of purple and red state voters realize the country’s debts are severely damaging the future hopes of their children and grandchildren. These people no longer trust the Democrats to solve the mess. Furthermore, the Democratic Party is existentially incapable of doing so. It has no idea how to reverse course. A convincing argument can actually be made that the Democrats are no longer a national entity. They will only be successful in solidly blue districts. This is one thing you can take for granted: most Democratic politicians would be thrilled to trade places with their Republican opponents! Navarette’s cheerful bit of optimism will do little to brighten their morning.
Hmmm….let’s see now….Bush and his people in 8 years: took a booming economy and not only tanked that, but dragged the rest of the world into the worst economic crisis since the 30′s; not only oversaw the worst terrorist attack in US history, but managed to go to war with the wrong country while deliberately lying about it, as well as completely botching getting at the people responsible for that attack; and did squat to deal with the growing health care cost crisis. And since elected Obama has been: dealing with the worst economic crisis since the 30′s; going after the people actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks, along with their protectors; and trying to deal with the still growing health care crisis.
And also for the record, Scott Brown go elected by only the suburbanites of Massachusetts — he lost in all of the academic and urban areas: Cambridge, for example, went better than 4-1 for Coakley.
BC, you overlook several facts. The country was in recession when Bush took office and enjoyed a substantial recovery under his administration. The housing bubble which is the real source of the weak economy was created under Clinton, along with the high tech boom-and-bust. (Remember the “dot-bombs?) Clinton did very little in response to Al-Quaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center–the first one, that is. His weak response to the attack encouraged Al-Quaeda to try something much bigger. If Obama gets to blame Bush for the problems still troubling the country after Bush left office, then Bush gets to blame Clinton on the same basis. Not that he did. Unlike Obama, Bush didn’t try to blame national problems on his predecessor.
The reason the public blames Bush for so much of our economic problems is the same reason they blame Congress for so much of it. Bush is a crony capitalist, just like Senator Dodd, Barney Fwank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Charles Rangel. Obama is a crony statist. We’re still getting crony government, whose leaders have come from government posts instead of corporations. That’s why Obama is going to get as much blame in the future for the country’s problems as Bush does today.
There is something else that I should add to my earlier comments. The politically active purple and red state voters no longer pay attention the MSM. Most of them are now getting their news from the alternative media. This makes all the difference in the world. They are far less susceptible to the lies and distortions of MSM outlets like the New York Times and CBS.
One should essentially ignore general population polling. On a practical level, they are a waste of time. Who gives a damn about the views of those who prefer to watch professional wrestling and comedy reruns? Do you vote? Do you donate money to valuable groups that represent your values and to solid political candidates? Are you somebody who makes an effort to be well informed? If not, you are simply wasting our time. You made your own choice to be a lazy bum. You are not a victim! The world doesn’t owe you a thing.
Politicians always run on what worked last time. Democrats run on everything that ever worked for them. You can gauge how things are going when they proceed backwards to the “Nixon era”, the “McCarthy era”, etc. They do skip popular presidents like Reagan and avoid, like the plague, folks like Carter and that little elf from Massachusetts riding around in that tank.
David Thompson,
Good post – undoubtedly so good that one of those lefty, agitating spin cycles was immediately able to prove your point for you after you stated, “A convincing argument can actually be made that the Democrats are no longer a national entity. They will only be successful in solidly blue districts.”
BC immediately replied without intending to be useful, “And also for the record, Scott Brown go elected by only the suburbanites of Massachusetts — he lost in all of the academic and urban areas: Cambridge, for example, went better than 4-1 for Coakley.”
I told you guys BC’s insipid and inane opinions would prove useful one day.
“…still put most of the blame for the nation’s economic problems on … wait for it … former President George W. Bush. Other culprits include Wall Street and Congress. And, despite the erosion in public support for Obama, a majority still says that he understands their needs and problems better than congressional Republicans. A majority also credit Obama — more than Republicans — with making an effort at bipartisanship, and they back the White House’s policies on a variety of issues, including allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military and repealing the Bush tax cuts.”
I guess the mantra of class warfare works better than I thought. Boy, I’d like to give the American people more credit, but I guess I can’t. It’s scary.
Remember Obummer’s line when talking to a group of bank CEOs early in his term? About how he’s the only one standing between them and the pitchforks? BO might seem incompetent to some – and maybe he is in a lot of respects, but he’s still able to lead the public along by the collective ring in their nose when it comes to fooling them about the need for the middle and upper classes to make the system work. As I said, it’s scary.
# 8 – You believe because Coakley won the vast majority of the Harvard faculity that is a testament to the candidate? If we were governed by that group we would be living in a totalitarian system.
Republicans have to be ready to immediately slap down morons like BC this fall.
1. The Clinton Presidency ended with a recession. I don’t blame Clinton, just the natural economic cycle. But the economy was NOT booming in 2000 / 2001. Remember that Dot.com bubble that burst?
2. The Bush Tax Cuts pulled us out of that recession. 911 created a second recession, but was followed by solid growth for 5 years.
3. Hillary, Biden, and most of the Democrats voted for the Iraqi War. Only later did they see the political advantage of demonizing Bush and our troops.
4. Congress, not the President, creates budgets and sets spending levels. Democrats have been in control of Congress since 2006. Two stimulus packages and trillions of dollars of waste later, they have destroyed our economy and put us on the path of economic ruin. When Senator Obama bothered to show up, he was not preaching fiscal restraint.
Obama and the Democrats, just like Democrats in the 30′s, are dealing with an economic crisis they made.
David Thomson 7.:”Furthermore, the Democratic Party is existentially incapable of doing so. It has no idea how to reverse course.”
Precisely. Actually, it can’t change course, if it were to do so, it would be indistinguishable from the Republicans and would no longer have any reason to exist. One of the great ironies of history is, the greater the power any one group or person has, the fewer their options in wielding that power, and with every decision they make, the narrower those options become. The extreme example is, of course, Hitler in his bunker, screaming in rage at hollowed out armies, until the only choice was a bullet in the head.
I know in thirty years my parents will be blaming Bush. I was informed the other day that the $32 billion hole that is Medicare is his fault. When I attempted to point out that the first three parts of Medicare were passed by Democrats, they went into denial.
I think the real question is will Ruben Navarrette Jr. still be blaming all the evil “white people” for all his problems….
BC:
Since this is an opinion topic and not a scientific one I will treat you with slightly more respect then usual.
Your post is riddled with misstatements and propaganda. For example, your statement that Bush “took a booming economy and tanked it…” is completely false. President Bush took over an economy in recession caused by the bursting tech bubble. The booming 90′s were a result not of Clinton’s economic policies. It was ignited by Bill Gates. His first job was getting the economy moving again and he did the same way JFK did by cutting taxes
You claim that Bush “oversaw the worst terrorist attack in US History…” is precisely wrong. Yes it took place on September 11, 2001 but it was conceived, planned and trained for during the Clinton administration. You remember how Clinton botched an opportunity to grab Bin Laden and the wall between law enforcement and intelligence don’t you? Bush also went into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda and the host Taliban right after the 9-11 attacks. He didn’t invade Iraq until 18 months later
I don’t know why you are still pushing this Scott Brown meme. Academics constitute a tiny portion of the voters while “urban” voters you refer to are by large made up of the parasitic welfare class and the people who service them. It is interesting to see how you treat academics as a serious group of people. I used to be an academic having been on faculty of Indiana University before coming to work at the Department of the Navy. One thing I learned from the transition is that an academic can spew all sorts of nonsense without consequences. I quickly found out that what I said had serious consequences in money and lives. Rabbi Dennis Prager likes to point out that academic credentials are not a measure of moral superiority (he has quite a few of these credentials) and that academics are more prone to following the path of moral depravity then the average person. He uses as an example the commanders of the four Einsatzcommando groups operating on the Eastern Front during the Second World War. Three were commanded by Ph.Ds and the fourth commander had masters and law degrees. In the Twentieth Century academics have supported in turn Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Ortega. In the new century they have continued this infatuation with Chavez, Hamas, Hezbollah and of course pretty much fallen for the new environmental based Fascism.
What you seem to forget is that Presidents inherit all the good and bad things from previous administrations. Clinton inherited the Balkans and Saddam from Bush. Reagan inherited an economic crisis from Carter that was actually far worse then what Obama faced. Nixon inherited Vietnam form Johnson who inherited it from Kennedy. Eisenhower got stuck with Korea by Truman. Truman had to sort through the post-war world and domestic adjustment from Roosevelt. (By the way the Post WWII recession was longer and deeper than the current one.) Obama blames Bush because he doesn’t have it in him to man-up and shoulder his responsibility as President.
Obama had done nothing to deNazify America after the Bush regimes attempted genocide of the world’s billion Muslims. The death camp in Guantanamo bay is still open and operational–the ovens and the showers are still on. We have yet to hear the full story on the secret death camps run by the CIA located throughout Europe. There needs to be a Nuremberg-like trial in the Hague for Bush, Cheney, Rove, Petraus, and the rest of the gang. Until that happens, Obama, in the interests of bipartisanship and healing, will have failed to address Bush’s crimes against humanity.
Now, Obama has raised the issue of corporate greed leaving so many American to die of treatable medical conditions. However, his plan seems to call for a system only partially based on compassion. The public option will be just one option, the power over greed will continue to hold sway over much of American medicine, leaving devastation in its wake.
A CBS/NYT poll has little credibility. As pointed out, the poll to watch is the Rasmussen polls and they tell a different story.
The problem with the Obama regime is its detachment from reality. Obama lives within a fictional narrative of his own authorship; he controls what goes on in that world, and who ‘lives’ in it. This fictional world has to set him up as pure, right and a savior. He cannot handle any intrusion of hard realityand he refuses to accept fault. The radical socialists in his team live in another fictional narrative; a utopian statism.
However, you can fool some people some or even all the time. I think BC is an example of that, of someone who prefers fiction to fact. But you cannot fool all the people all the time. The Tea Party Movement, the Town Halls, both of which are novel and unprecedented grassroots voices, are an example of the latter. They aren’t fooled by the rhetoric of Obama and the socialists.
At this point, blaming the previous administration/GWB is just an excuse for BHO, a way to rationalize his own and his administration’s incompetence.
I don’t agree that voters are “going along” with the transparent sham.
Old Soldier @ #15: Don’t disagree with the gist of what you’re saying, but no need to use epithets about BC. As I have told BC on several occasions, we can disagree, but let’s not be disagreeable. (Kudos to BC for toning down his rhetoric, even though I generally disagree with what he has to say.)
#20: Your post has to be a parody. Otherwise, you should seek professional help immediately.
BC told:
Bush and his people in 8 years: took a booming economy and not only tanked that, but dragged the rest of the world into the worst economic crisis
Bush and people took the US economy just when the dot com bubble was bout to burst, when Enron (who had string ties to Gore’s AGW scam) was about to burst in additiocrisis triggered by 9/11 and still managed to get the conomy in order. Then seven years later, with Congres (that is the institution who votes budgets) in democrat hands an economic depressiojn was triggered by the implosion of Faanny Mae and Fredy Mac, two institutions he had tried to reform and was prevented of doing so by the Democrats. Also wasn’t it sweet that the bakrptcy of these two institutions led by prominent democrats, happened at the moment it did, that is when the Palin effect had placed McCain ahead, instead of, say, November 5th?
not only oversaw the worst terrorist attack in US history?
Let’s see. When an attack takes place under Bush it is Bush fault despite having been planned under Clinton and that the head of its mastermind had been handled to him a silver platter but he apparently was too busy getting BJed to care about it.
When over abut managed to go to war with the wrong country while deliberately lying about it, as we year after inauguration something happens under Obama it is Bush’ fault.
Sorry but no Democrat leader, no foreign leader be it Putin, Chirac or anyone of those who opposed Iraki Freedom ever told Bush was lying. All of them agreed with Saddam having a WMD program. They only told to lets continue the game of hide and seek Sadam was playiong with the inspectors (who BTW allowed to fill many pockets at the UN and in those countries involved in Oil for Food). Bush just told what the CIA was saying to him. It is you who are lying when you tell he lied. And you lie knowingly.
And since elected Obama has been: dealing with the worst economic crisis since the 30’s; going after the people actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks, along with their protectors; and trying to deal with the still growing health care crisis.
Since elected Obama has been running a program allowing George Soros to buy bad debt at 70% of its nominal value and sell it to the tax-payer at 90%.
Since elected Obama has been thrashing the Constitution by bypassing the Congress through his czars.
Since elected Obama has managed to put Acorn in charge of the Census. That is people who have been involved in electoral fraud in charge of determining number of representatives by state.
Since elected Obama has been trying to make the crisis as deep as possible now so return to “real level”v makes him look like a hero
And if you believe that nationalized health care will squash costs you should take a look at SS deficits in European countries.
Marxism is an ideology of grievance. Its psychological dynamic is absolutely dependent on an enemy as a uniting force. In the book 1984, this was played by Goldstein.
Being in power without a credible scapegoat, and being held accountable for results, is a very awkward state for marxists, and the bush-bashing shows that. Also, obama only listens to the marxists around him, which contributes to the air of total disconnection that he exudes.
Hmmm…let’s see now…Bush inherited a recession left behind by Clinton, not a booming economy. Another oft repeated lie by the left. Bush inherited the terrorists who trained in America under the Clinton administration and carried out their attack in less than a year after Bush took office. Bush’s administration could not realize the benefit of shared information between the CIA and FBI because of a Clinton administration appointee, Jamie Gorelick who also became Vice Chairman of FAnnie Mae from 1997 to 2003, who instituted the infamous “wall of separation”. Clinton was the president when the first attack took place at the Twin Towers. Clinton’s administration ripped out the heart of our intelligence community and therefore, when Bush took over, he and his advisors had to rely on foreign intelligence operations for any information. The information received did in fact support the belief that Saddam Hussein had WMDs as he had successfully led the world to believe. After all, if you follow the liberal mantra, repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth, is exactly what Saddam did and guess what? The world believed him.
If BC would bother to go back in history and check the long line of Democrats calling from the removal of Saddam Hussein before Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.,etc.,etc., he or she would realize Bush was not the beginning, he just took it to a logical end AFTER 9/11. All of the saber rattling was done during the Clinton years.
As far as the economy tanking under Bush, the downfall was set in motion under Carter and finalized under Clinton, not Bush. It was Clinton’s team who silenced Brooksley Born, not Bush. Born sounded the alarm about derivatives but the team of Rubin, Geithner, Summers, and Greenspan shut her down immediately. Otherwise, the one sensible person in Clinton’s administration could have been the one who prevented the meltdown. Check your damn facts first before proclaiming who is at fault. Then, in coordination with a few Republicans, Clinton orchestrated the repeal of Glass-Stegal and replaced it with Gramm-Bliley-Leach which effectively removed the final obstacles from lenders and borrowers for any responsibility at all. It was during the Clinton administration that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the bank of choice for a handful of Democrats. It was Clinton’s cronies who walked away with hundreds of millions in bonuses and stock options for being incompetent jerks.
Now, let’s see….we have the same team in place under Obama who were responsible for placing us in harm’s way to begin with. Geithner, Summers, Rubin, and so many others are back in charge of the financial disaster they helped create. And guess who got the biggest payoff of all? Yep, Rubin. The architect of the cover-up and silencing of Born. Also the guy who worked for Citigroup who received the largest bailout of all. The same guy who earned $126 million from Citigroup for being an incompetent over an 8 year period. Yeah, that’s it. The same guy who Obama used for a fiancial advisor. Blind leading the blind in total ignorance of fact and reality.
As for the tanked economy under Bush. Now, it is a fact that Bush didn’t meet a spending bill he didn’t like during his first 6 years. The ink in his veto pen was dry when he tried to use it the first time. He made mistake after mistake but he inherited most of the problems he had to deal with. He tried to enact some oversight and regulatory influence over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the wonderful Democrats shot it down every time, screaming racism, racism, racism. Barney Franks and Chris Dodd who were the two largest recipients of Mae and Mac largesse were the two who were always out front, defending everything they did. It was Barney Frank’s lover who worked there for 10 years while they were living together as a couple. Lovers sharing information over pillow talk. I think that may constitute a conflict of interest, don’t you?
I can go on and on but I think the message is clear. Obama is nothing more than an empty suit. He wanted the job and he got it. Now, when the rubber meets the road, he is not willing to accept his responsibility for his failures and continues to blame everyone else, especially Bush. Bush, who will not criticize Obama just as he did not criticize Clinton. Bush, who definitely has his shortcomings but is more of a man in the end of his little finger than Obama and Clinton combined.
Obama is a bitchy crybaby, blaming Republicans for his failure to get anything passed even though he had a super majority in the House and Senate. He still maintains a vast majority and yet, he still complains about Republicans blocking progress. Damnation, what does this inexperienced and immature community organizer want? If he doesn’t have the balls to get it done with the advantages he has now, what does that tell us about his leadership abilities? It points out one simple fact – he is not a leader, he is a pompous lecturer, indicative of the “academic and urban areas” elitism and condescending attitudes toward those who are not their “intellectual equals”. Someone who distributes the wealth of others without actually earning anything on their own. Aptly demonstrated by the number of advisors, cabinet members, etc. surrounding Obama. Less than 10% have ever worked in private industry. They have worked in government, academia, and non-profit jobs their entire lives and have no real world practical experience. And these are the people who know best how to run a major corporation – GM, Chrysler, and banking?
Using Scott Brown to insult suburbanites in Massachusetts and by implication, the rest of the country only proves once again, academics are just that – academics. They know nothing of the real world, only what exists in unproven situations and pretend scenarios. They live in a world of illusion with little or no concept of what goes on in the real world. Cambridge went for Coakley 4-1? Now, who in hell is surprised at that little gem? Cambridge, the home of Harvard? Alma mater of Obama? Alma mater of most of Obama’s advisors? Gee, what a surprise. The surprise is that it was only 4-1. Should have been 20-1. Need to run those who supported Brown out of town.
And finally, as far as lying. So far, Obama has been the most prolific liar to ever set foot in the White House. One would think that his dependency on a teleprompter would prevent him from eternally contradicting himself on every occasion. Where are his fact checkers?
The unwashed proletariat are realizing the empty suit Obama really is. Those who still hold to the hope of America and her promise, not the ones who hold onto the paychecks of those who produce and in turn, produce nothing themselves. The “suburbanites” who live and work to raise and feed their families, pay their mortgages, honor their debts, and live an honorable life. Yeah, those trashy people, right BC?
To Jack Olson: I tend not to “overlook” anything — for instance, what should have been a red flag for what Bush would be like throughout his presidency, his people manipulated the time frames in order to blame the recession on Clinton. And his tax cuts were no more than irresponsible, pandering BS that the top economists at the time warned strongly against and they turned out to be right.
And the supposed economic boom turned out to be mostly illusionary, based on imaginary stock values and their derivatives.
Only a very intelligent Leftist can change course.
This happens through a combination of overwhelming cognitive dissonance followed by a period of brutal self-honesty, a long process of re-assessment that makes it impossible to continue holding the previous set of knee jerk assumptions.
On any given topic, most Leftoids on PJM and elsewhere aren’t bright enough to do anything but trot out the pre-ordained, all purpose rationalization that has been spoon fed to them.
It’s very tedious.
(apostle of love would be more aptly called apostle of hate, or apostle of ignorance…he gets his talking points from some brain dead, radical hate group)
That unfeeling, uncaring, Republican president, Herbert Hoover caused the misery of the Great Depression from which we were, and could only be, redeemed by the saintly Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
That unfeeling, uncaring, Republican president, George W. Bush caused the misery of the Greatest Economic Crisis since the Great Depression from which we are, and can only be, redeemed by the demi-god Democratic president Barack Hussein Obama.
Remind me. Which political party is the one that espouses tired, worn out ideas?
Others have pretty thoroughly fisked BC’s party-line inanities, so I will only add that the economic downturn of 2008-present is NOT the worst since the Great Depression; it still isn’t as bad as the Jimmy Carter recession. Funny how libs keep forgetting that one.
BTW, BC- what’s your problem with taking down Saddam Hussein, and killing thousands of al-Qaeda in the process?
BHO will continue to blame ANYONE else for his own failures as long as their is a critical mass of useful idiots like BC he can rely on to carry his water for him.
The facts are these:
While the Republicans had majority control of Congress they held the 2000-2001 recession to a short, shallow minimum, unemployment remained below 6.5% (averaged about 5.2%), the economy grew at 3% per year, for a total of 20% real growth by 2008, inflation-adjusted, federal revenue peaked at historic levels, personal disposable income grew by 9% and the federal deficit shrunk each year from 2004 to 2007, at which point the government was on track for a balanced budget by late 2008. Defense spending, forced by the U.N.’s incompetence and refusal to do its job, “exploded” from 3%… to a whopping 4% of GDP.
All that CHANGED when the Democrats took the majority in Congress in 2007, leading off with one of their first attacks on the businesses that drive the economy: hiking up the minimum wage. The Democrat majority then proceed to TRIPLE the federal deficit with GWB’s “compassionate conservative” – aka Socialist Lite® – help. After three years of a Democrat majority, the unemployment rate has doubled. The federal deficit has been exploded BY A FACTOR OF TEN – from $160B to $1.6T, in only three years. And every day we hear about more “unexpected” bad news regarding the economy. As if. Meanwhile, every effort by the Republicans back in 2004, to force some accountability on the GSE’s and avert the credit meltdown that ultimately hit in 2008 was resisted by the Democrats. So who are the “obstructionists” again?
The left’s standard strategy for decades has been to create social problems, blame others for them, and then propose populist “solutions” which always involve bigger government and a higher level of pathological dependency on the State. And by “the left”, I’m referring not only to socialists in the Democrat party, but their quisling RINO enablers, as well.
Health care is a perfect example. It’s a market problem, not a governance problem. Leftists in government have been using the Cloward-Piven strategy since the 1960s to create the problem: skyrocketing health care costs. This problem was manufactured by incrementally destroying the economic relationship between the health care provider and consumer, which subsequently neutralized ALL downward pressure on health care prices. Now they are moving to “solve” the crisis they created, by exploiting a SYMPTOM (the so-called “uninsured”) and ramming socialized medicine down the throats of Americans as a “solution”.
To Bart: Read my reply to Jack Olson. As far as insulting suburbanites goes, if they start paying a little bit more attention to the world outside of home improvement, gardening, vacations, and shopping at the malls on weekends, maybe they might clue-up a little bit more and there would be less to insult.
Jack in Silver Spring: Sorry – What Democrats like BC do stupid, just misleading. They hope that the general population is too distracted and misinformed to see through the lies.
Maybe we’ll remember 2000 as a year of milk and honey. Maybe we’ll forget that Reid and Pelosi have led Congress for 4 years. Could be that we don’t know who creates the federal budget, or think that the Executive is the only branch of government. Perhaps we won’t remember that Bush had been President for only 9 months when 911 occurred. If so, we’ll get what we deserve.
The democrats have had control over congress since 2006 and yet Bush keeps getting blamed. It is the job of congress to spend money, and Obama still finds a way to weasel himself out from that responsibility. Maybe he pushed the wrong button when he was voting then. The economy surged for most of these years that Bush was POTUS, but that point also gets forgotten. Bush also had to deal with the inaction against the terrrorists by Clinton. It amazes me that every seemds to forget this. But then I remember that we have Obama, we disregard the truth when it doesn’t suit our needs, then create a crisis and make sure it doesn’t go to waste.
To JFM: Bush did nothing except lie about when the recession started and made a series of botches — did you not click on those links, the blue thingys that act funny when you pass you cursor over it? As far as the WMD stuff goes, you just regurgitating GOP talking points BS. Thanks to the initial Afgan attack, the US had more resources that area than at any other time and nothing supported the Iraqi WMD contention. And the more Bush warned about Iraq and its supposed WMD and al-Qaida connections, the more the evidence built up that there was no such things. US intel and special forces weren’t finding anything, as well as the UN inspectors, but still Bush was planning to plunge ahead regardless.
It was never more than a nasty, BS war by a nasty, BS President.
Because Obama really doesn’t qualify has an adult male, because his personality is that of a nasty, even vicious child, we may count on him blaming Bush and hiding behind him for years to come.
And because liberals share similar psychic abnormalities we may expect the same from them. Note BC above for example.
This sort of thing happens when you lust to get your hands around the throats of your fellow humans, when you lust to control and ruin their lives, and you are frustrated in the evanescence of your cancerous hatred.
This is the modern liberal, though the name has nothing to do with the sickness & disease of the personality.
Bart said:
Now, it is a fact that Bush didn’t meet a spending bill he didn’t like during his first 6 years. The ink in his veto pen was dry when he tried to use it the first time.
Wrong. Deficits went steadily down during Bush mandates (debt was moderately up). That is until 2008, the first year a Democratic Congress had an opportunity to vote for the budget, when it went brutally up. You have to remember however that in 2008, Bush with his popularity in its low twenties could not oppose anything voted by the Congress. Constitutionally he could, in practice he couldn’t because the public (brainwashed by the MSM) would have supported the Congress even if violating the Constitution.
Be careful with this. Polling has, for a very long time now, been an attempt to mold opinion, not measure it. Unless and until I see how the questions were actually phrased I wouldn’t take any of this to the bank. Don’t forget, Bush was elected twice and Obama has the lowest approval numbers of any presiden in history. Those are the polls that count.
@JFM,
How many did he veto during his first 6 years?
Sarah Palin was Governor of Alaska 17 months. During this time she sold a controversial state owned plane, passed a bi-partisan ethics law that eventually drove her from office by legal bill racked up defending herself from legal action by one unbalanced woman, Sarah also got a bid sale organized for the largest construction project in North America, the gas pipeline. Sarah convinced EXXON to do what she wanted. Sarah allowed a law to pass without her veto giving health benefits to same sex partners of state employees. Sarah’s governorship was marked by the decision of EXXON to pay off damages from the EXXON oil spill 20 years earlier. Sarah gave the move the capitol move people encouragement by taking the oath of Governor in Fairbanks, working in Anchorage, resigning in Wasilla and watching the new Governor take the oath of office in Fairbanks. Sarah Palin,woman of accomplishment.
The best revenge we can have on Obama and his junta is to balance the budget without raising taxes by cutting the budget.
Yes. Cut it. Simply cut it.
Do not negotiate or coddle the progressives in this process. IF there are any democrats willing to help, let them help, but other than that: fillibuster and veto.
And maybe the most delicious part of this austerity will be this: not one dime of money for left wing academia. These persons are the fountainhead of the poisonous geyser rotting the heart of this country–and we’re paying for it.
36. BC:Please, illuminate us about the legality of Saddam’s ballistic missiles vis a vis the UN resolutions ending the first Gulf War….
Yes, you’re reading off a script for some Soros funded front group, we get that, and that’s fine–but all of your points so far have been exactly what you’ve accused others of–they are talking points. You know, those subjective assertions that rely on the opposing party’s not knowing certain things?
So OK, I know you don’t this one, regardless of what your Obamaprompter is telling you-tell me about the “legality” of the war in regards to those ballistic missiles.
#32 goy – thanks for your erudite outline. You base your analysis on facts – and you are correct.
BC, the reason people bypass your links and comments is that your links are not to facts but biased opinions. As are your own comments.
As you can see, many people here form their conclusions based on facts, not simply other opinions. Insulting people, whether those who comment here, or Bush, are not valid arguments.
44. ETAB:
the reason they bypass BC’s comments is because by entertaining them and engaging them you give them credibility they don’t deserve. they choose not to feed the trolls.
@44. ETAB: – thanks for your erudite outline.
My pleasure. And thank you.
BC has apparently given up responding to my posts, with good reason: whenever he does, he gets his clock cleaned. His tactic is a standard dismissal, like he uses above, blubbering something about “talking points” instead of actually addressing those points. It’s all he’s got. Or she’s got. Whatev.
Doesn’t anyone with half a brain coach the big O? Milking the blame Bush line beyond the first year of his presidency is a guaranteed loser. Talk about beating a dead horse.
If everyone truly interested in the facts does not go back and read goy at #32, they are missing the entire boat.
And, anyone taking anything BC says seriously, is “at sea” on almost any issue on which he opines.
I was going to post almost precisely what goy said in #32, so thanks for your wonderful contribution as always, goy.
I can only add this, Ruben. The folks who swing every national vote in this country…those GDI’s, that “middle swing” voter…is creating an avalanche away from this administration. On nearly every issue they have abandoned ship and are racing away from this administration, their policies, their stealth legislation, their legislation by ambush tactics, and </i. the "blame Bush" and "others" for all their sins of omission and commission.
Take the folks out of the "poll" in question who would support Obama if he was standing over a two year old with a smoking gun, saying he believed in Al Gore and global warming and the baby did not.
Take out those who would vote against Obama if he offered to buy everyone in America a red Ferrari out of his own (or Tony Rezko's) pocket.
The folks remaining, those who are willing to think about the issues…are leaving him in droves. At a 2-1, possibly a 3-1 clip. They don’t buy the “Bush is the answer to all negative questions”, the sell-by date makes that curdled and sour to their tastes.
And their “polling” on the quality of Congress couldn’t be lower if that chamber was manned by Richard Speck, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy.
BC:
Your arguments about the timing of the recession are pathetic. The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the 2000-2001 recession from the fourth quarter of 2000 and pinpoints the start in November. If anybody manipulated the data it was the Clinton Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis which deliberately inflated their measure of corporate profits to keep the dot.com bubble inflated through the 2000 election. Shortly after the election the BEA revised their estimate of corporate profits down by an unprecedented 25%. Several other key economic measures were also underwent significant downward revision.
The 1990′s business cycle had little to do with Clinton on either end. The IT revolution changed the aggregate production function and accelerated growth. That’s why the Clinton tax increases did not cause economic stagnation. The rate of return on investment initially exceeded the increase in taxes. As companies ITed up the marginal gains from informationalization declined, investment slowed down and the tax hike bit. The economy headed for a cyclic correction. Like all booms, particularly ones driven by radical changes in the production, this one generated speculative excess as people tried to cash in on the mode of production with mere vaporware.
The economy would have recovered on its own had it not been for the 9-11 attacks; an event that could have easily been prevented by the Clinton administration through the simple act of grabbing Bin Laden when given an opportunity to do so. Clinton chose to nothing except lob a few cruise missiles and send a few FBI agents abroad when Al Qaeda blew something up. If there was no 9-11 then there would have no extension of the recession and the business cycle would have been far less severe than the one we had. It is interesting that nobody in the Bush administration blamed Clinton even though it would have been easy and accurate to do so. That is because George W. Bush was a man and Barak H. Obama is not.
so much will happen in the next two years that we will look back at this day and wish for the “good ole days” of early 2010…
BC ,you’re a negative on “any” subject that wants good for America, and probably a plant, just for the heck of it..
20, a joke
32…thank you good post!!
I agree that the economy would have recovered if not for 9/11. I don’t know who initiated the attack, but it happened and we needed to deal with it.
@49. tdiinva: – the Clinton tax increases did not cause economic stagnation.
Excellent, excellent points overall, tdiinva. In particular, I had completely forgotten about the BEA revision. But this point above isn’t strictly accurate.
Recovery from the early ’90s recession was in fact retarded by the tax hike in ’93. I agree that it can’t be called outright stagnation, however. The important thing to note is that the cap. gains tax reduction in ’97 pretty much saved Clinton’s “legacy”, just as the Republican majority from ’94 onward (combined with their stupid choice to run “Walter Mondale” in ’96) effectively got him re-elected.
@48. cfbleachers: – … “polling” on the quality of Congress couldn’t be lower if that chamber was manned by Richard Speck, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy.
Thanks cf’.
Above is the key to November, IMHO. It’s ironic that the Democrat Congressional Majority has gotten away with running against the damage done to our economy by… the Democrat Congressional majority. They’ve been successful in this because The Left Wing Media has been complicit in hanging all negatives on Bush – a process which began with Joe Wilson IV’s NYT lies and continued unabated (and, to Bush’s everlasting shame, unanswered) until… hell… it continues to this day!
Americans need to understand who is ultimately responsible for the fiscal policies that drive the economy. They need to understand what happened in 2004, and how Democrat obstructionism and cronyism let to the credit meltdown in 2008. They need to see, graphically, the EXPLOSION in the federal deficit – an order of magnitude – that has occurred under the so-called Democrat “leadership”.
Having seen all that, most Americans will know exactly what to do: kick every tax-and-spend Democrat and their RINO enablers out of Congress; make Paul Ryan Speaker of the House; and put the entire lot on notice that we’ll do this again in 2012, and we’ll keep on doing it, until they start reducing entitlements and balancing the budget until it looks more like it did in 2007.
Meanwhile, every American needs a crash education on the limits our Constitution places on government, so that every “moderate” understands how much of their position is based, not on a lack of common sense or compassion, but on simple ignorance of the law.
Keep telling me how this is Bush’s fault.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/obama-deficit-bush.jpg
Bart said:
How many did he veto during his first 6 years?
And that means what? He had a Congress from his party meaning that the natural tendency was to have less conflicts with Congress than presidents who had to face a hostile one. It can also reflect Presidential style ie he doesn’t veto because he had negotiated upsterelm with the Congress (we could call it a secret veto). Or because he feels that immoderate use of the veto would violate the spirit of the Constitution by preventing the Legialative from doing its job.
What you have to look at is the end result: despite the huge cost of WOT deficit went _down_ and down and down from 2001 to 2007 included. That is a better indicator than number of vetoes. You could argue that he could have done a better job at reducing them. But it is unfair to say, like some people say, that Bush spent like a drunken sailor. He didn’t and they are wrong.
Goy:
There is some truth to that statement but there is a long chain of events to get there. The supply side approach taken by the Reagan administration favored the kind of investments that underpinned the IT breakout of the 1990′s. However, it was the IT revolution that drove the economy in the ’90s. The IT boom followed the pattern of the electrification of the economy that occured in the late 19th and first decade of the 20th Century. Early investments were made that let to technology breakout that changed the production function, followed by over-investment and contraction. It raised the real rate return to such an extent that both the investing class and the treasury could benefit. However, the iron law of dimminishing returns eventually kicks in coupled with over investment driven by exhuberance and the boom turns to bust in part caused by a steep fall after tax rates of return.
@52. Old Soldier: – Keep telling me…
It would be so nice if people would stop erroneously attributing surpluses and deficits to the President. He is a factor, yes, but spending and budget bills must be passed by Congress. Ultimately, they have the final word on fiscal policy legislation, as pursued by the federal government. The President’s job – as Executive – is to execute their legislation.
Try this.
It is time to wake up people. The USA was raped and pillaged by Bush and republicans for 8 years. Tax cuts for the rich, an unpaid & unnecessary war. Thousands of jobs outsourced to China. Cheney’s war profiteering. Remember $5 gallon of gas? Unpaid prescription medicare bill. Asleep at the wheel for so many things – real estate/stock market melt down, Bank bailout. I could go on all day long. seriously!!!
And you criticize Obama for not fixing everything in one year!!! I’m afraid some of our problems created by Bush and cronies will be unfixable. Lets get real people, The previous administration should, and will be on the hook for this more many years to come!
Beyond Comatose
non sequitur
Still playing both sides of the fence. Using your own accusations and compartmentalizing each demographic segment like libbes so love to do, the idea of suburbanization was the intent of the haves trying to distance themselves from the have-nots.
If suburbanites are so asleep at the wheel, and your urban/academia crowd so attuned to all that is profound, why is it that your type always having to beg the suburbanites for more funding to subsidize your useless works schmuck?
Bow to Caesar Obama and return to your slumber…
Given that culture is larger than the political arena, because there
are things which take place, and they do not affect the political arena; for instance, where I bought some tasty rye bread does not impact on the political arena – we see the left of centre clearly identified by blaming everyone else, except themselves.
Until that changes, that litmus test will be 100% effective as to where a person’s political orientation lies.
@55. tdiinva: – There is some truth to that statement but there is a long chain of events to get there.
Agreed. My only point was that we can’t completely discount the cap. gains tax reduction in looking at the performance of the economy post-’97. Your added thoughts explain why that one change, although helpful, was not enough to sustain growth at least until 9/11.
36. BC:
“— did you not click on those links”
I don’t know about JFM, but I never visit your links anymore and I suspect few people do. Links are supposed to provide support for a well-considered position, not reinforce how inane and ill-considered the position is.
And as for the cracks about suburbanites, I doubt you have any idea how much a jacka$$ you come off saying them to anyone outside the snotty crowd you run with. Especially to the highly educated and highly productive citizens who populate the suburbs.
@57. Joe Shoelace: – It is time to wake up people.
Yeah, you should try it – you’re dreaming.
- The USA was raped and pillaged by Bush and republicans for 8 years.
Again – for the lazy and/or willfully obtuse: while the Republicans had majority control of Congress they held the 2000-2001 recession to a short, shallow minimum, unemployment remained below 6.5% (averaged about 5.2%), the economy grew at 3% per year, for a total of 20% real growth by 2008, inflation-adjusted, federal revenue peaked at historic levels, personal disposable income grew by 9% and the federal deficit shrunk each year from 2004 to 2007, at which point the government was on track for a balanced budget by late 2008. Defense spending, forced by the U.N.’s incompetence and refusal to do its job, “exploded” from 3%… to a whopping 4% of GDP.
Hardly “rape”. Definitely not “pillaging”. But then…
All that CHANGED when the Democrats took the majority in Congress in 2007, leading off with one of their first attacks on the businesses that drive the economy: hiking up the minimum wage. The Democrat majority then proceed to TRIPLE the federal deficit their first year, with GWB’s “compassionate conservative” – aka Socialist Lite® – help. After three years of a Democrat majority, the unemployment rate has doubled and the federal deficit has been exploded BY A FACTOR OF TEN – from $160B to $1.6T. So who raped and pillaged again?
- Tax cuts for the rich, …
Which, ironically, caused the “rich” to contribute more to the tax base. Weird, huh.
- …an unpaid & unnecessary war.
Another lemming parroting the standard party line.
- Thousands of jobs outsourced to China.
Thanks to minimum wage hike and onerous taxes.
- Remember $5 gallon of gas?
Sure do – it was the product of the Democrats’ suicidal energy policy. That price dropped steadily beginning July 15, 2008 – the day AFTER GWB popped the oil price bubble by reversing the EO on domestic drilling.
- Unpaid prescription medicare bill.
Oh, it’s paid for – by the Taxpayers. It’s just another wrong-headed, deficit-funded entitlement program intended to buy votes, that needs to be eliminated, just like Medicare.
- Asleep at the wheel for so many things – real estate/stock market melt down, Bank bailout.
You’re referring here, of course, to the Democrats’ obstruction when Bush, et al., tried to inject some accountability into the “affordable mortgage” boondoggle being run by Democrat cronies at the GSEs to buy votes. Every effort by the Republicans back in 2004, to force some accountability on the GSE’s and avert the credit meltdown that ultimately hit in 2008 was resisted by the Democrats.
- And you criticize Obama for not fixing everything in one year!!!
Nope. He gets criticized for teaming up with the Democrat Congressional majority and making things so much WORSE.
In Joe Shoelace we have finally we have a troll who makes BC look well reasoned.
Joe, we had $5 gas because the Democrats in Congress killed any hope of passing the Bush Administration energy plan. The Democrats have probably locked up as much oil reserves as the entire world outside of Saudi Arabia.
Will he still invoke Bush W ’12? yes he will and he has every right to. Conservatives understand the importance of personal responsibility better than anyone. They should just expect its coming and be quiet about it. Of course its not exclusively his fault. You could make a solid argument that Greenspan’s irrational targeting of Fed rates and subsequent ignorance of asset bubbles as a key factor in the economy’s collapse. Ultimately it was on Bush’s watch. Its his Golem. If Healthcare is defeated it wont be the DNC’s fault for ignoring the MA senate race. It will be Obama’s fault.
@64. Brian: – Will he still invoke Bush W ‘12? yes he will and he has every right to.
LOL! Looks like the Axelturfers have been sent the link to this article.
Sorry, “on his watch” is a dodge the Democrats have been using to avoid accountability for at least two years. Conversely, 9/11 was planned and largely executed on Clinton’s “watch”. Enron and WorldComm festered on Clinton’s “watch”. The dot-com bubble was ignored and burst on Clinton’s “watch”. See how easy?
No President dictates Fed policy.
“Healthcare” doesn’t need to be passed. We already HAVE health care – universal access to it, in fact. All you have to do is take responsibility to pay for it – like you do your food, clothing, transportation, housing and all the other necessities of life.
On the other hand, if socialized medicine is defeated, it will be because the American people have said loudly and consistently that they don’t want it.
Brian:
As I pointed out in my first post, Presidents always inherit both the good and the bad from the predecessor. The good ones like Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan take the lemons and make lemonade while the bad ones like Carter and now Obama make things even worse. You seem to think the world is reset with every administration.
Do camels crap in the desert?
Democrats ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for governing? Hahahahahahahahaha!!
When there’s two peas in a pod, it’s not a great leap to put them together. And that’s
what makes sense to do with the patently delusional Barack and the gawky liar pathological, Michelle.
Says Michelle, “I don’t read newspapers. We don’t talk about the news.” That was the silly parry that came out
of the screachy, supercilious, sanctimonious voice of Michelle, who, along with her self absorbed husband, didn’t
have the decency to renounce an indecent mocking of Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome two year old, Trig Palin.
Michelle was being interviewed by Mike Huckabee who tries so hard not to offend anyone that his great sense
of humor has the impact of a pebble dropped into the Pacific Ocean. Mike asked Michelle if she ever watched
Fox news which was like a thrust into the ground producing a rushing oil geyser of machine gun lies.
Michelle and Barack, nincompoops of biblical proportions are protected from their numerous misstatements and outright
lies by a mainstream media that reminds me of the monkey who can see, hear and talk no evil about them. Moreover they’re asked
no questions that a third grader couldn’t handle. You’ll never hear a question about the family guy Trig show, or what happened
to the CNN promise to broadcast ObamaCare negotiations, or Michell’s sweetheart job paid for by Obama with a huge
cash disbursement from Illinois to University of Chicago Medical Center. And I suppose 100 thousand dollar raises are an
everyday occurance.
And the Obamas talk as if it was Michelle’s idea to wage an attack on obesity. If some reporter asked how much she weighed, it
would probably be the only question the Obama’s couldn’t blame on Bush. Incidentally, Mr. Navarrette is correct. Barack uses that
tried and true Bush smear every chance the brown eyed handsome man gets. How refreshing it would be if some reporter asked Barack how much longer he was going to drink from the “Bush’s fault” well. Will it ever run dry?
Of course, the Obama’s have much precedent to fall back on. Clinton blamed his Lewinsky indescretions on Bush senior. Ford blamed his assassination attack on Nixon. LBJ blamed the war on JFK. Truman blamed FDR for dying. Carter blamed his rose garden presidency on Ford. Not.
The point: I can remember no other President who stooped so low as to blame every problem on his predecessor. President Obama assumes virtually no responsibility as he spends full throttle, without, I should add, actually disbursing much of the money. Why? Wouldn’t some reporter somewhere be curious? The reason? Obama’s 900 billion Stimulus scheme has created a 600 billion slush fund. It’s main purpose? Paying off blue dog democrats who they’re asking to fall on the sword and vote for ObamaCare. Should they lose the next election, they get a five million dollar payday. How does Obama get away with it? He’s set up a pattern of bad tracking of disbursements with millions going to districts in Florida that don’t exist. Holder hasn’t cared to track the lost money. And Holder won’t accuse Obama of anything because Holder has his hand in the cookie jar, too.
If in 2012 a Republican is elected President, there will be no outcry to track down missing monies. It’ll be new problems with no desire to redress the past. It’s the old Washington two step. Problem is, this country can’t afford Obama. We can’t afford to blame Bush for going backrupt.
The Obama’s sit so confident and secure because they know their futures are secure, having salted away enough money to live like and eat like Kings and Queens for the rest of their money grubbing lives.
You see, these nefarious miscreants are ideologues only up to a point. At that point, they’re not in it for the country. They’re in
it for the money.
The only question left is whether or not we’re going to let them get away with it.
Jimmy Carter spent his dotage blaming everyone who came after him. (And slandering Israel)
At least this is a change in that regard.
This administration blames everyone that came before…and slanders America.
Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Our biggest enemy is our President and a contingent of politicians in Washington DC .
So I assume that if Barack loses re-election, he will blame Bush as well? THATS gonna be fine with me! And probably GWB too!
69. rachel peepers,
Excellent rant and ya always be muh boo, Rache but, just for the record, I can’t find anything remotely handsome about the Poindexter McDouchey Potus.
Hey! A HuffPuff Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/rahm-emanuel-saboteur-of_n_482638.html
When they can’t blame Boooooosh, they can always blame Rahmmmm!
Anonymous said, “Thirty years from now, liberals will still be blaming Bush for everything.”
I say, “And so will the history books. We’ll be living with Bush’s folly for a long time to come.”
Jimmy Carter is still responsible for the mess the Middle East is today. The fake Israel peace just bought time for the terrorists. The CIA was gutted on his watch. He should told the Iranian governemt after the revolution/hostages “Either give back our diplomats, or give us the people that took them”, then bombed, bombed, bombed, Iran if they did not comply. He still opens his senile mouth to this day to undermine US policy.
I wonder if the commentors above with few exceptions have ever read the ‘Declaration of Independence’, in particular the passage
regarding ‘Despotism’(in case you don’t know what that means I suggest you look it up). When Mr. Obama challenged the Supreme Court and the “Republican Mafia” it was the the most patriotic thing Ive seen a president do in quite some time. Here is that passage regarding despotism:”But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design
to reduce them under abosolute Despotism, it is their right,IT IS THEIR DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
In this case despotism has taken the form of capitalism out of control “Wall Street”. If the statistics are correct that the average CEO,s and upper level administration is now 275times that of the average American worker as compared to in 1980 as 27 times larger, then it does not take a genious to figure the consequences
of such self indulgance. Or the lack of oversight when an insurance company pays a thousand dollars for a tooth brush, where did that money go. So yes no one wants government to control everything, but on the other hand Wall street and the
private sector clearly will not. The GOP and in some cases the Democratic parties do not want to get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Their is plenty of blame to go around, but the fact is our Beloved Country is failing right before our eyes, statistics show it, the rest of the world knows it. Yet our Congress and Senate continue to act like school children fighting over who will be Safety patrol leaders. This is what our Founding
Fathers warned us about. It is up to the American people to change this course, the problem is the media, and many of our elected officials speak to us with such double talk that no one seems to know which way they should turn. One of our chief contemporary weaknesses is complacency. No previous generation has had its passions so continuously exercised in the form of motion pictures, comic strips, television, radio, games, gambeling
sports, sex, advertisement etc and not to mention the medium I,m typing in right now. We become emotionally jaded and persuaded by
these very mediums we now are slave to. We believe it OK for a Baseball player to make 10 12 million a year, and a soldier or policeman to make below average salary. We believe its OK for an Actor to make millions, and our teachers to make below average salary. America has become blinded by its own self indulgence and greed of the rich and powerful.
Mr. Obama may not do everything right but I admire his courage to stand up to this Despotism. Let those of us who have no sin cast the first stone. Frank Bishop, Viet-nam era Veteran.
History shows that Hoover, a conservative and literal hero for his past acts, made a few bad economic decisions in a short time and created a bad recession. Then Roosevelt, a man of few accomplishments compared to Hoover but a better communicator and socialist, made bad economic decisions continually for over a decade while growing government massively and turned Hoover’s deep recession into the Great Depression. Then somehow history got written that Hoover caused the Great Depression and Roosevelt saved us. No one ever seemed to ask why we did not recover from Hoover’s recession like we had recovered from many other deep recessions through out the entire history of our country. The reason of course is because of the economic chaos caused by Roosevelts decade long effots at radically restructuring our whole country into one with a massively larger and more expensive central government. I think history is repeating itself because Obama is doing the same thing with the same results. Obama’s teacher Alinsky taught that if you identify and personalize the enemy and then attack that target over and over again, regardless of the truth of the attacks, people will eventually believe it. It worked wonderfully during Bush’s last term and in the last election and they are trying it again. Like Roosevelt, Obama is attempting to massively restructure and grow government and blame his predecessor. And again, the uncertainties created by all this activity and threats to our freedom is causing massive economic chaos. Also like Roosevelt, if it causes a decade of economic depression and human suffering to reach his utopian centralized government aims and his place in history as our saviour so be it.
The Democrats with the help of the MSM is clearly attempting to help Obama with his aims and blaming Bush is an important tactic. Hopefully the fact that people are finally waking up to this deceitful playbook combined with the new media like PJ Media and its like minded new media outlets getting the truth out will save us. With luck the damage already done will only set us back 5 years instead of a decade.
A better way to think of this is in terms of brands.
Obama markets himself as a Ferrari, but he’s actually a Fiat according to every reasonable metric. Still, a Fiat is better than a Skoda, which equates with how Americans think of Dubya and the GOP. Therefore, the GOP must market an alternative to Obama that beats a Fiat, e.g. a Volkswagen or even better, a BMW. Doing so will require disassociation with previous branding.
Sen. Bunning of Kentucky recently showed the way by resisting adding $10 billion to the national deficit through a consent motion. This brave action could serve to rally certain GOP Senate members to form a “No Deficit” caucus, requiring all spending of every kind that isn’t funded by revenues to undergo full debate and voting procedures. Each time the No Deficit caucus objects to unfunded spending, the deficit and debt issues will be rehashed along with the GOP response to them, thereby helping to re-brand the GOP.
78. Lavavux,
Naw. GW is a Marauder and Barry is a Gremlin (feature not glitch for the both of ‘em).
I guess the continued support for Obama helps explain why
Democrats stormed to victory in Massachussets, New Jersey and
Virginia in the recently held elections. Senator Martha Coakley
and Governor Jon Corzine have both attributed their landslide
‘wins’ to voters contempt for Republicans and George W. Bush.
What planet is the author of this piece living on? Really,
am I missing something?
For eight years the media put the full force of their considerable power and influence into demonizing George W. Bush. Most, if not all, of America was brainwashed into believing that Bush was Hitler reincarnated. This paved the way for the media to put the full force of their power and influence into getting Obama elected by running as the “un-Bush”. The “watchdogs of the government” media has lost their credibility with the American people and their betrayal will not be forgotten for a long time.
Other than the fact that the war criminal and Wall Street lapdog Bush is responsible for everything that is wrong with our country, I have no idea why Obama would blame him. Bush sold out America by starting two illegal wars, torturing polictal dissenters, and making sure that his pals in Big Oil, Big Insurance, Haliburton, Wall Street, and in Saudi Arabia made billion off the back of women, children, and minorities.
BC, your arguments stink. You sound like one of those folks who gets a tingle up his leg when Obama speaks… good grief, give me a break.
You allege that the Bush administration is to blame for the worst economy since the Great Depression, and “tanked” a robust economy they inherited from Clinton. True, Bush spent like a Democrat, but Obama is an order of magnitude worse and no end in sight. The Clinton economy was artificially-inflated, a bubble – just like every other economic “boom” created by Democrats in recent history. Out of control Democratic spending since the Great Society has turned what used to be the world’s creditor into the world’s biggest debtor. The economic crisis in which we are embroiled is a result of government interference in the markets – esp. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – forcing banks to fund millions upon millions of risky loans and mortgages. Why? Because Democrats view material wealth and prosperity as a right, not something that has to be earned. The coming entitlements crisis is directly traceable to the Democratic Party and its enablers in big labor and public employee unions, who would rather bankrupt a nation than give up the “right” to retire at fifty. Bush also faced the unprecidented crisis of the 9-11 attacks, which also severely damaged the economy. Al-Qaeda head Bin Laden could have been taken out by Clinton, but he refused over the objections of many analysts; Clinton administration officials insisted on calling it a mere law-enforcement problem. The Bush invasion of Iraq may – and I stress may – have been a mistake; good people come down on both sides of this issue – but at least we didn’t have to worry whether or not the man cared about defending America from Islamists, and not kissing their rings. Obama is not “dealing” with the healthcare crisis; he seeks to socialize medicine, fully 1/6th of our economy, over the objections of the majority of Americans. The “why” of this decision is not so mysterious; the Democratic big-government machine has an insatiable need for funds, and they see dolar signs in controlling healthcare, not to mention a means of exercising yet more-control over the individual American. BC, do you want to become enslaved? Then cede control of the most personal decisions in your life, those about your body and whether you live or die, to a bureaucrat in Washington.
9. Jack Olson “Bush is a crony capitalist..//.. Obama is a crony statist.” Very well-said, Mr. Olson. I’ll try to remember your description to tell to others.
17. Derek “I know in thirty years my parents will be blaming Bush. I was informed the other day that the $32 billion hole that is Medicare is his fault. When I attempted to point out that the first three parts of Medicare were passed by Democrats, they went into denial.” Derek, perhaps with gutsy young guys like you, there is hope for our nation after all. Well done!
19. tdiinva “Obama blames Bush because he doesn’t have it in him to man-up and shoulder his responsibility as President.” Precisely!
27. Bart, what a brilliant post! Especially like “They have worked in government, academia, and non-profit jobs their entire lives and have no real world practical experience. And these are the people who know best how to run a major corporation – GM, Chrysler, and banking?” and the bit about Brooksley Born, and the Clinton repeal of Glass-Stegal, and the finance corruptocrats running the Fed and Treasury. Rubin ought to be making small rocks out of big ones, forever in some prison. Best of all, “Bush, who will not criticize Obama just as he did not criticize Clinton. Bush, who definitely has his shortcomings but is more of a man in the end of his little finger than Obama and Clinton combined.”
I only fault Bush for not stepping up to the plate and defending himself better, but then agains, Cheney is doing that fine for both of them.
IT IS A CRIME AND THEY ARE CRIMINALS! A PIECE HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON THIS ALREADY WHICH PROVES IT IS A CRIME, NOT A CIVIL OFFENSE AS RUBEN SO IGNORANTLY (OR PERHAPS ON PURPOSE) TRIES TO GET AMERICANS TO BELIEVE. NAVARRETTE CAN NEVER BE OBJECTIVE – HE IS ONLY FOR HIS OWN ETHNIC GROUP – NOT FOR AMERICA. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TRYING TO WRITE HIM. HE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO MEXICO AND HELP “HIS” COUNTRY NOT STAY HERE, REAP OUR BENEFITS AND TRY TO CONSTANTLY FOOL AND LIE TO AMERICANS!
To baal: Yeah, let’s ignore Bush’s colossal BS about why we needed to preemptively (and basically illegally) invade Iraq, and instead try to use UN resolutions as an excuse to justify it — see how far you get.
This jerk BC typifies why this country is suffering. When morons like him are dead the world in general will be a better place. Suffocating stupidity has no place in society.
Hey, I’m counting on this. I figure 2010 is going to be another 1994. Back then, Bill Clinton accepted the situation, moved to the middle, worked with the GOP and got the government moving the economy in the right direction. This ensured his reelection.
I figured Obama would either do that or, since he has spent the last year whining about GOP obstructionism while Democrats hold a super majority, he would kick the whine machine into high gear and not get anything done over the next two years after he vetoes GOP proposal after GOP proposal. This will guarantee his defeat in 2012.
To Pete: The stimulus plan that originated with Bush’s people, and which Obama supported, is basically what the majority of the top economists recommended as being needed and was modeled somewhat after how the huge in increase in military spending for WWII basically finally ended the Great Depression. Actually many economists had wanted an even larger stimulus package, but that would likely been politically toxic. The much criticized bailouts for financial and auto companies was also based on what what happened in the Great Depression when banks were allowed to fail and which was analyzed later as being a huge mistake that extended the depression. Letting Lehman Brothers fail is also now being regarded as having been a big mistake.
In some respects, Obama’s hands are somewhat tied since he’s basically trying to follow the prescription that was easily the most widely recommended by real experts in the field, and has deal with political forces trying to cluelessly mock or disrupt its execution.
@76. Frank Bishop: – When Mr. Obama challenged the Supreme Court and the “Republican Mafia” it was the the most patriotic thing Ive seen a president do in quite some time.
Too bad that when he “challenged” the SCOTUS, he effectively lied.
As for the “Republican Mafia” – which has been acting as enablers for socialism for almost ten years now – the Democrats have had an unstoppable majority since BHO took office. They squandered it because in their hearts they know that majority is illegitimate and that they must get political, “bipartisan” cover for ANY significant action they take. They can only do this by coercing Republicans into supporting their sovietization of America. When they don’t get that support, they whine and moan like the little children they are, calling the Republicans names. Like “Mafia”. As if.
If there is one, it’s the DEMOCRAT “Mafia” which has held this country against the wall with a gun to our head. They squandered every positive trend that resulted from the policies implemented by their hapless predecessors (see above), exploding the federal deficit by a FACTOR OF TEN, doubling unemployment in only three years, nationalizing our auto industry and seizing control over the banking sector. They blame ALL of their actions, and the predictably devastating results, on the SUCCESSFUL policies of the Republican majority that preceded them, while ignoring their own culpability in fiascoes like CRA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which continue to drain billion$ from the Treasury to this day), Cash for Clunkers, total ineptitude in assessing the economy and the utterly wasted Spendulu$.
Maybe YOU should read the Declaration and realize that an overweening, greedy, unaccountable GOVERNMENT is exactly what the Founders declared independence FROM.
Meanwhile, all your adulation is based on a false premise.
As bad as Obama and the Democrats have been in the last year,
it should be noted that George W. Bush is not blameless for
the current economic calamity that has befallen us. Bush
allowed the problems with our banking system to go unadressed
for 8 long years. Of course Bush was not responsible for the
creation of the subprime loan market and he did make some
feeble attempts to get Congress to take some corrective
measures, but in the end he essentially did nothing. It
was Bush’s SEC and other regulatory agencies that allowed
Banks and investment houses to vastly overleverage, and
this is something Bush could have reigned in without
Congressional approval.
Have I also mentioned that the level of federal spending
during the Bush Administration was outrageous? Obama’s
many failures certainly don’t excuse Bush’s failures.
If Obama is still able to successfully mine the ‘Bush
did it’ line it’s because there is some truth to the
sentiment.
BC:
The reason that the banks failed in 1931-33 was that the US remained on the Gold Standard while Europe left it behind. This caused an outflow of gold to Europe which in turn reduced the monetary base. The Federal Reserve moved to a contractionary monetary policy to prevent the gold outflow thus collapsing the banking system. You should get off the internet and go to a library and read some books. I suggest Milton and Rose Friedman’s “The Monetary History of the United States.” The chapter called “The Great Contraction was published as a separate book.
The 50 (or is it 57) states are laboratory of experimentation. We have examples of blue, red and purple state governance. Can you explain why the deep blue states are poorly governed, purple states are ok and red states are well governed? We can even go international. Greece and Spain are perfect examples of blue state policies in action with both countries are on the brink of fiscal collapse and state failure. Your task is to explain why this is so and how it is Bush’s fault.
Please do not give me the “burden of poor people and illegal immigrants argument because Texas has same problems as California.
@90. KDW: – As bad as Obama and the Democrats have been in the last year,
it should be noted that George W. Bush is not blameless for the current economic calamity that has befallen us.
This is absolutely true, but absolutely NOT for the reasons you’ve chosen to misrepresent it. Bush allowed himself to be duped – as most were – by Paulson’s lies about how TARP would be used. He failed, utterly, to bring his case for removal of Saddam directly to the people, rationally and convincingly. Rather, he allowed years of Left Wing Media attacks and disinformation to set the tone and, thus, the mood regarding Iraq and all other aspects of his administration. He also failed to overrule the Democrats’ adolescent tirades and fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when he might have had the chance.
- Bush allowed the problems with our banking system to go unadressed for 8 long years.
Wrong. In 2004 a serious attempt was made to pro-actively correct what turned out to be the root cause of the banking system meltdown: abuses at the GSEs that inflated and ultimately popped the housing market bubble. Democrats hysterically and violently obstructed reform in that area, falsely claiming that there was “nothing wrong” with either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, and claiming that any threat to the vote-purchasing scam of “affordable mortgages” (read: Taxpayer-funded, low-income homeownership) was unacceptable.
- It was Bush’s SEC and other regulatory agencies that allowed Banks and investment houses to vastly overleverage, …
Wrong. The federal government does not CONTROL the banking industry. The legislation people claim made the banking sector vulnerable to the negative, housing-bubble impact of CRA and the corrupt bundling of bad, GSE loans was passed (or repealed, depending on how you look at it) while Clinton was President.
- Have I also mentioned that the level of federal spending during the Bush Administration was outrageous?
Probably. And by any relative measure you’d be laughed at. During the years 2004 through 2007, the federal deficit was dropping like a stone. The federal budget, based on spending and revenue trends in early 2007, was headed for balance by late 2008. When the Democrat majority took control of Congress, all that changed. The first thing they did was attack small business by hiking the minimum wage. Then they TRIPLED the deficit with the aid of GWB’s “compassionate conservative” (read: Socialist Lite®) pen. This year’s Democrat budget has exploded the last Republican deficit by A FACTOR OF TEN TIMES – from $160B to $1.6T – which is probably a record increase for such a short amount of time.
- Obama’s many failures certainly don’t excuse Bush’s failures.
No, they don’t. But BHO’s failures already dwarf GWBs, and it’s only been a YEAR. And that’s before we even get to talking about how he’s failed to repeal the Patriot Act, failed to close Guantanamo, failed to stop warrantless wiretaps, failed to put an end to “extreme” interrogation, failed to exit Iraq on his idiotic timeline, failed to repeal DADT, failed to actively support “gay marriage”, etc., etc.
- If Obama is still able to successfully mine the ‘Bush did it’ line it’s because there is some truth to the sentiment.
Wrong. If he’s able to use this line, it’s because his water-carriers in The Left Wing Media and the left-0-sphere have been reciting it over and over and over again since before the Democrats destroyed the economy.
@92 Goy
Goy, I misrepresented nothing. I never said Bush was solely
responsible for our economic problems but he is definitely
in line for some of the blame. How can you deny it? After
all he was President from 2001 thru 2009 when these financial
machinations were coming to a head. Bush recognized there were
looming dangers but he ultimately did nothing. I don’t
remember any major speeches by Bush dealing with the subject.
Maybe I missed them.
You’re also wrong about the Presidents role in regulating the
financial industry. Congress passes laws but the Executive
Branch is responsible for enforcing them. Thru various
agencies (SEC, FDIC etc.) the Adminstration regulates the
banking, investment and insurance industries. The Executive
Branch has the authority to close down any financial institutions
that fall below certain capital requirements. The Bush
Administration allowed various companies like AIG, Lehman Bros.,
Merrill Lynch and Citigroup to vastly overleverage when they
could have stopped this practice. It was this overleveraging
that helped fuel the meltdown. Bush’s refusal to amend the
mark-to-market accounting rules also exacerbated the crash.
The last Bush budgets were also notable for their large deficits.
The deficit in the last full year of the Bush Presidency was
approximately $400 billion. Last years $1.5 trillion deficit was
for a budget Bush signed into law. Obama made the deficit worse
with his ‘stimulus plan’, but we still would have been $800
billion in the red even with just what Bush had approved.
There were many actors involved in the economic meltdown (Alan
Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank etc.) And
yes Obama has done even more damage. Yet it is laughable to
suggest that George W. Bush bears no responsibility for our
economic problems, which is all I said.
@93. KDW: – I never said Bush was solely responsible for our economic problems …
And, likewise, I never claimed you did.
- How can you deny it?
I didn’t. Try re-reading for comprehension this time.
- After all he was President from 2001 thru 2009 when these financial machinations were coming to a head.
After decades in the making. Clinton was President during the entire planning and most of the execution phase of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, during the worst of the Enron and WorldComm abuses and during the insane inflation of the dot-com bubble, the Waco Massacre, the OKC bombing, the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania, Kenya & Pakistan, and Vince Foster’s “suicide”. You going to hold him responsible for all that? Those “failures” dwarf even BHO’s at this point. But his administration is young.
- Bush recognized there were looming dangers but he ultimately did nothing.
This is risible nonsense, as has already pointed out. What he didn’t do was put infantile Democrats like Frank and Waters over his knee and spank them like they deserved. Why? Because at the time he was being attacked 24/7 by every element of The Left Wing Media’s pogrom, which started with Joe Wilson IV’s lies in the WaPo and then the NYT, and continued with relentless, daily misrepresentation of the Plamegate “investigation”, which was actually over the day Fitzgerald learned that Richard Armitage was the guy he was looking for, and that no laws had been broken when he exposed Wilson as the serial liar he is. By the time the Fannie Mae accounting scandal became an issue, The Left Wing Media had spent over a YEAR lying about and demonizing the Bush administration for everything from “lies” about WMDs to the way he pronounced the word “nuclear”. Action against the hysterical Democrats to fix the GSEs in that climate would have been impossible, and misrepresented to the American People by the LWM as an “attack” on homeowners and the poor. You know that as well as I do.
- Congress passes laws but the Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing them.
Again, the law in effect in 2008 was fully “executed”. If you don’t like the way it was executed, maybe you should talk to all those congresscritters whose campaigns were financed by Wall Street investment firms in 2006 and 2008. The fact is this: without the volatile housing bubble created by CRA and GSE misfeasance, the term “overleveraging” would have had no meaning. It’s a 20/20 hindsight talking point parroted by the left.
- The last Bush budgets were also notable for their large deficits.
That might be significant if the President were solely responsible for the budget and the deficit. The last three budgets anyone can reasonably hang on the Republican majority are those from 2005 through 2007. Each one was significantly lower than the previous one, as shown above (and you ignored). During the last TWO years of the “Bush Presidency”, the Democrat Majority in Congress was completely responsible for the budget, and for exploding the deficit – first by a factor of 3 and, since, BY A FACTOR OF TEN TIMES. Obama either voted for or signed every budget since 2007 that exploded the deficit. Go ahead – tell me Bush “should have” vetoed those last two budgets – see above regarding the 24/7 demonization Bush has enjoyed since late 2003 and tell me how that would have been possible.
- it is laughable to suggest that George W. Bush bears no responsibility for our economic problems, which is all I said.
No, that’s not all you said. And no one suggested that GWB bears no responsibility. He simply doesn’t bear the responsibility you fantasize.
Does anyone here remember when Bush blamed Clinton for the recession and 9-11?
I do.
Honestly, if you can’t see the mess that Obama came into office with then you are beyond help.
Obama is our Commander-in-Chief, and it was treasonous to speak ill of Bush during wartime when he was Commander-in-Chief, why the big change?
You would have a stronger voice if you were not such hypocrites. Suck it up.
@94 Goy
For someone who says he agrees with the notion that Bush is at
least somewhat responsible for the economic meltdown, you seem
to spend the rest of your responses making excuses why Bush
isn’t responsible. It’s irrelevant whether Paulson gave him
bad advice or that the Democrats were mean to him, that Joe
Wilson told lies about him, the Washington Post trashed him or
that the sun was too hot or his shoes were too tight. President
Bush, as the head of our government, thru the regulatory agencies
he controlled, had the authority and responsibility to regulate
our financial industry. He didn’t do it. Bush talked a mean game
but didn’t follow thru. Bush could have stopped the banks and
investment houses, thru the SEC, from overleveraging. Bush
could have stopped AIG from making underwriting promises (credit
default swaps)it couldn’t possibly keep. Again, the regulatory
agencies he controlled didn’t do their jobs.
Bush’s inattention to regulation and large increases in federal
spending, plus his panicked response to the crisis were his
major contributions to our financial problems. He isn’t
solely culpable for our problems but he played a major role.
Obama’s incompetence is no reason to cut Bush any slack.
@95. william wonka: – I do.
Must have been a very vivid dream.
- Honestly, if you can’t see the mess that Obama came into office with then you are beyond help.
OF COURSE there was a mess! But here’s the thing: BHO helped create the mess.
BHO was part of the Democrat majority that doubled unemployment, tripled the deficit, attacked small business, politicized the war and fought tooth and nail against the Surge.
Here’s another thing: he volunteered for the job, knowing what a mess he’d helped create. DESPITE that mess, he BEGGED for the job. HE CAMPAIGNED for the job. He openly lied and committed FRAUD for the job. After all that, to complain that the mess was there when he took office, and refuse to take responsibility for it, is the height of arrogant, narcissist delusion.
- …it was treasonous to speak ill of Bush during wartime when he was Commander-in-Chief…
Really? So four years of Left Wing Media lies, demonization, criticism, spin, misrepresentation and outright partisan attacks were… treasonous? Where were you? Did you complain about any of that?
“Speaking ill” of the President is not treasonous, bub, it is an act protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Where does Axelrod find you people?
@96. KDW: – For someone who says he agrees with the notion that Bush is at
least somewhat responsible for the economic meltdown, you seem to spend the rest of your responses making excuses why Bush isn’t responsible.
Wrong. My responses have simply demonstrated how you have no idea what you’re talking about.
- It’s irrelevant whether Paulson gave him bad advice …
Says you. Ultimately, Paulson lied, outright, about what would ultimately be done with TARP funding and, therefore, why it was needed for such an emergency in the first place. That’s not “bad advice”, sonny. Outside this, you are not only completely delusional about what Bush’s options were between 2004 and 2008, but in making your claim, you also claim that you KNEW better than he and his cabinet what needed to be done THEN. Pardon me if I find your assertions unpersuasive.
- President Bush, as the head of our government, thru the regulatory agencies
he controlled, had the authority and responsibility to regulate our financial industry.
Of course he had the authority. But, again, the President is not King – contrary to what you and BHO may think. He doesn’t have unlimited power to just act, even if he does have a crystal ball and can see into the future, which neither your nor GWB could do. Get over it. “Overleveraging” is a Monday Morning Quarterback dodge. If Gore had carried his own HOME STATE in 2000, no one would have known what a “hanging chad” was. Just so, if CRA and the GSE’s not over-inflated and then destroyed the housing market, no one would be talking about “overleveraging” today.
- Obama’s incompetence is no reason to cut Bush any slack.
No one’s cutting GWB slack for the things he was actually, directly responsible for. He was not the ONLY person in government, and irrespective of what YOU PERSONALLY may think he should have done six or seven years ago, based on what you THINK you know TODAY. His options were limited based on time and circumstance, just like every other President – witness BHO’s almost complete failure, so far, to enact ANY of the agenda he campaigned on, despite his willing minion majority in Congress.
Did Bush use perfect judgment? No. Could he see into the future? No. But did he actively work to destroy this Republic the way BHO is currently doing? No, not by a long shot. And that’s the only thing you need to know to see the difference between them.
See tdiinva’s posts above – EVERY President accepts the way things are when they take office. If they don’t, they should not campaign for the office in the first place. Blame Bush for anything you want. BHO will thank you for it because he’s never been held accountable for a single act in his entire life. Meanwhile, the facts are available to anyone who wants to look into them – they’re all outlined above.
I will blame Bush for Obama not being elected in 2012.
“a Volkswagen”
Volkswagens suck. (Really, they do. They’re less reliable than Chryslers, and have been for at least a decade – no one seems to notice because ZEY’RE GERMAN).
Use, oh, say, Ford, and you’ve got an analogy.
We consevatives will be blaming obama soon enough his work will eclipse everything bush did..
william wonka: has already pardoned obama 1 year into his tenture.
Soooooo; We get rid of one Hussein for creating so much havoc in the world, and the Liberals elect one for retribution.
And this one has more power than the first one did to create havoc in the United States.
And it looks like his followers would commit suicide to express their committment to him, just like the first Husseins worshipers would.
People miss George Bush. They know he’s honest, compassionate, patriotic, decisive, is sincere in his faith, and LOVES America. Obama is none of what I just described of Bush.
104 888
Bush might have been all the things you describe – compassionate,
patriotic, decisive and true lover of America. He also wasn’t
particularly competent.
@105. kdw: – He also wasn’t particularly competent.
By what measure?
Aside from not being much of a conservative in the fiscal or constitutional sense (certainly his prerogative after winning a national election), GWB’s main failing was his inability to communicate his foreign policy agenda to Americans. In that sense he was an abysmal leader. But other than failing to make any progress toward dismantling the insolvent Social Security system, he pretty much achieved his goals.
In the ‘not particularly competent’ column, I’d include his utter lack of response to years of Left Wing Media lies, half-truths, innuendo, cherry-picked fallacy, misrepresentation, spin and outright demonization, but we mostly have Rove’s “strategy” to thank for that: the “New Tone” (read: no tone at all / tone-deaf). Unfortunately, it gave us the GOP-destroying, left-leaning, “compassionate conservative”, spendthrift Republican majority after 2003, the economy-destroying Democrat Congress in 2006 and a nation-destroying President in 2008.
Meanwhile, as of today at least we have a very clear definition of what incompetence means at the level of POTUS.