26 Responses

  1. Rich K says:

    Well, the truth never stopped Obama before and you and I and the guy up the road know it wont stop him now.

  2. Paul A'Barge says:

    You don’t hold GWBush and the big-government, go-along, get-along RINO Republicans who went along with GWBush at least partially responsible for what eventually led to the Great Recession?

    Oh yes. Certainly Obama has made matters almost infinitely worse.

    But dude, let’s get a grip, a clue and an perspective here. Anyone with a 1/2 a brain can build a list for you of the things that the big-government Republicans along with GWBush did to F’ America.

    You’re a big mucky-muck with a freakin’ think tank. Surely you can do better than this?

    • Galvin says:

      So use your half a brain to provide some examples of what you are talking about that “led to the Great Recession.” Links would be nice.

      • harleycowboy says:

        I blame the commuity reinvestment act. It required bankers to make risky loans in order to expand in certain areas. This was followed by a second such act which made it easier to make loans. Oversite by B. Frank and C. Dobbs didn’t help any.

  3. Mike Constitution says:

    Would it be too much to factor in the economic impacts of the 9/11 atrocities? It was the Bush tax rate reductions that jump started the economy out of the Clinton internet bubble recession and the double whammy of the attacks.

    • Mr. Mark says:

      I think the economic impact of the attacks was less than the association that charts of performance-over-time would show. The attacks might have impacted deeply no matter what, but surely it would have been a brief, isolated drop if the economy had been sound.

  4. Diggs says:

    It’s pretty easy to confuse Democrats about economics. If they knew anything about how an economy works, they’d be Republicans.

    • Mr. Mark says:

      No. If they knew how to dress up their ideas in red, white, and blue and make ignorant followers believe they’re conservative, then they’d be Republicans.

      The GOP is the DNC rebranded by better marketers.

  5. aaron says:

    Don’t forget the TSA. Bush is responsible for all the economic damage caused by the TSA.

    • mark l. says:

      in my minority view…
      don’t stop at TSA. let’s go with the entire department of homeland security. 40 billion at inception. 60 billion, now.

      the lesson of 9/11 was that intel agencies didn’t share info, with too many layers. homeland security was supposed to interconnect existing agencies…

      instead we have created a new agency, with it’s own level of unwillingness to support existing agencies, in it’s own quest for validation/justification for it’s existence.

      if anything, it only served to insultate the presidency from day to day decisions…

      most of the immigration enforcement issues have a tendency to be funneled thorugh the office of napolitano, buffering the potus.

  6. Mr. Mark says:

    Like many blockbusters, it was a ensemble cast.

    No, it cannot be blamed on Bush 43 – at least not entirely. However, I certainly credit him with an assist.

    MVP for the current situation, here in 2012, is shared by Barack Obama and Democrats in both houses of congress.

    But let’s not forget about that great play under the tail-end of the Bush 43 administration in which we got the TARP! (I don’t know about the rest of you, but I sure enjoyed my phone call to my “conservative” congressman’s office in which a zit-faced, nasal staffer talked down to me about my inability to understand how important it was to give away $800 thousand-million dollars to politically-connected, incompetently-run businesses.)

    Bush 43 had a few other moments of glory prior to the big TARP of 2008. Most notable were the Medicare prescription drug giveaway and the BCRA. (Okay, the BCRA wasn’t really economic – it was a trashing of the 1st amendment, but it brings me to my list of other high scoring players in the sport of economic and political destructo-ball, which begins with John McCain – of McCain-Feingold fame.)

    Prior to the Bush 43 administration, (how many of the rest you experience brain-pain when trying to comprehend that the past decade could actually have been WORSE (Al Gore)?), we had the dot-bomb era of phoney growth and idiotic commentary on CNBC about “the end of the business cycle” and such. Remember day-trading? It was a sort of financial version of starting a meth habit.

    What really impressed me was how quickly the “Republican Revolution” of the mid-nineties forgot about that Contract with America and got down to the REAL business of cronyism and laying down for the Democrats. For a moment there I was afraid we might start paying down the debt or something.

    Of course Obama is full of it when blames the current catastrophe on Bush. But let’s face it – the GOP is no champion of free market economics, constitutional law, or limited government. They’re just the less disgusting choice of the two that are on the menu.

    • mark l. says:

      “Like many blockbusters, it was a ensemble cast.”

      my favorite has to be john snowe. take an very uncurious academic and ask him to keep an eye on things after the removal of glass-steagal.

      that worked out well…

      or, from a ‘right’ perspective…take barney frank.

      they were the yin and yang of ignorance. one oblivious, the other ‘willfully’ ignorant.

  7. mark l. says:

    the dems view of economics is a mystery unto itself.

    bush debt/spending bad, obama spending/debt good.

    reagan, irresponsible tax cutter, while the top marginal rates were only lowered to a modest 50%, in his first term, compared to the ‘success’ of clinton, who was responsible with top marginal rates below 40%.

    they wanted the clinton surpluses back under bush, but refuse to demand the same standard from obama. nevermind that the clinton surplus budget was based on govt spending at less than 19% of gdp…

    they blithely accept that spending at 24% of gdp is the natural state of things.

    hysterically funny that they are wanting to resurrect the clinton tax plan, which was designed to fund a govt that was spending less than 20% of gdp. the fools actually think it would work.

    I remember hillary clinton lamenting that trillion dollar deficits, as far as the eye can see, would be the result og bush policies.

    here we are, now, and not a peep.

    how bout that tag they used for state of things, despite the fact that gdp grew at an average rate of 2.95% from 03-06?

    that, then, was a ‘jobless recovery’.
    wtf is this, now?

    costly foreign wars, nation building?
    ask a dem how many troops are in afghanistan…
    ask them to explain how obama has been the purchaser of four of the six most expensive years in military spending.

    bush’s peaking military spending for afghanistan and iraq:
    2008, 185.7 billion.

    2009, 155.1 billion.
    2010, 171.0 billion.
    2011, 170.7 billion.

    the expenditure, once the chief villian of driving debt(in liberal minds) is now a discarded talking point only fit to judge ex-presidents by.

    they don’t want to know anyhting, when it is their guy.

    • mark l. says:

      the only refuge for this level of cognitive dissonnance is actually found in simple word:

      faith.

      funny that the left is hostile to religion, when they represent an evolutionary offshoot.

      ‘we are all going to burn in the fires of global warming’…
      not even original.

  8. Basil Legg says:

    When did Nancy Pelosi become Speaker of the House? You guessed it! January 2007. Draw the line from that date. We can never let the Democrat party have control over the House of Representatives again. Ever.

  9. Ed says:

    In other news, a newly discovered Fuhrer Bunker document shows Adolf Hilter blaming the democratically elected 1920 Weimar Republic for killing 6 million Jews.

  10. TJ King says:

    Regarding Clinton’s economy:
    1. The 2000 recession was revised under political pressure to appear to have started later than it did so it couldn’t be blamed on Clinton.
    2. One of the causes of the Clinton recession was the dotcom bust that many believe was started by uncertainty caused by aggressive attacks on hitech firms like Microsoft. The pointman? Eric Holder.
    3. The Dems love to remark about GWB inheriting a surplus. At the time GOP argued that if taxes are taking in more than we are spending, should we not balance the budget, by giving the money back to the over taxed. His response was the people don’t know how to spend it right. Perhaps if they had spent it their own way, it would have had a stimulative effect, which the Dems seem to be big fans of now.

    4. When Bush 41 broke his No new taxes pledge, the law instituted strict spending caps, that Clinton was forced to abide by for many years.

    5. The Dotcom/Hitech boom was a direct result of Reagan/Bush’s pro-entrepeneur, pro-small business policies. They were merely hitting full stride.

    6. Clinton cut the military in half and pocketed the money for his policies which put us in a vulnerable security position. GWB had to budget expendditures in his administration to rebuild it after suffering the worst attack since Pearl Harbor.

    7. The GOP forced Clinton kicking and screaming to fiscal responsibility. Many of the policies the Dems applaud Clinton for, suchas Welfare Reform, he had vetoed twice before.

    On Bush:

    8. No President in history has ever created and maintained 88 months of growth. GWB did it,…and the recovery began in the face of an attack on US Soil that shutdown our transportion system for the first time since the Wright Bros. It targeted our financial system and succeeded in shutting down the NYSE for the first time in generations, and this stifled trade and transportation of US goods and heaped new costs on moving goods, not to mention the cost of the war to fight back against our enemies. Yet, GWB set an 88 month record. Gold Medal for Bush.

    9. Democratic Politicians and the media had attempted to talk down the economy for several years, yet they did not have a substantial amount of political leverage to effect the economy until they took over congress in 2007. Two leading critics that erroneously claimed that we had already been in a recession were Reid and Schumer. Schumer through an irresponsible remark (Intentional) caused a bank run that set off much of the instability. Reid followed with a similar carefully placed remark about Insurance companies that had equally devastating effects..

    10. The Deficit under Bush did increase the year he came in to office and increased mostly as a result of the previously mentioned challenges he faced to maintain a growing economy and low unemployment, but it began to drop each year and right up until the Democrats took over it was dropping as low as the low 200s. That ended when the Dems unleashed their spending plans. Obama played a leadership role in that spending boom as a Senator.

    11. Obama’s numbers on the deficit usually include his counting TARP as a spending knock on Bush and the eventual payback as revenue under him. TARP was a loan for the most case and if it is paid back, which it was for the most part if you exclude the Auto bailout, so a loan should be credited back to Bush and neutral. This means Obama’s deficit is higher than he says and Bush’s is much smaller.

    12. Obama slams Bush’s tax cuts, but if they are so bad, why did he extend them already. That is clearly an admission that he realizes their positive effect and the negative efect of their repeal. Also, by proposing to repeal only the cuts on the rich, he will recover only $25B. That is almost the exact amount that we lost on the Auto Bailout I just mentioned.

    13. Obama opened his state of the union a few years ago by claiming everybody hates the bailout, meaning TARP. Obama is TARP. Its his baby. He has alternated between trashing it and claiming credit for it. When he and McCain helicoptered in to the WH, the meeting was described as McCain doing most of the listening, Bush said almost nothing, The Tres Sec asked questions of the Dems, and Pelosi and Reid placed Obama at the head of the table and he did most of the talking and directing. TARP was made in his image. If He wants to blame anyone for TARP he should look in the mirror. I am big enough to give him credit since the payback worked surprisingly well. So blame or credit, you cant have one without the other.

    In the end, if Obama had taken his lumps and then proposed deficit reduction in early 2012, it might have given him some economic credibility that he sincerely wants to save the economy, but the debt path he has laid out is not just unsustainable, it may be suicidal.

    Many economists, including Richard Duncan, here:
    http://moneymorning.com/ob/economist-richard-duncan-civilization-may-not-survive-death-spiral/

    …have suggested we may fall in to a death spiral fom which there is no return. A new dark ages that will suck the western world into a hole of famine and war.

    Obama doesn’t seem to care, instead he fiddles while the world teeters on the brink. And his only response is, “The Dog ate my homework”.

    • Mr. Mark says:

      Re: “The Dotcom/Hitech boom was a direct result of Reagan/Bush’s pro-entrepeneur, pro-small business policies. They were merely hitting full stride.”

      The high-tech boom was the result of high tech. Entrepreneurial activity is the result of entrepreneurship. Success does not come from government.

      Re: “No President in history has ever created and maintained 88 months of growth. GWB did it,…”

      I’m not aware of GWB creating anything. Businesses are built by the people who run them and work for them. In other words, politicians didn’t build that.

      Re: “Gold Medal for Bush.”

      For what? Existing? For signing the BCRA? For adopting a Texas accent (family from Connecticut, I believe?) and pretending to be a “rancher”? For signing the Medicare prescription drug giveaway?

      I’ll give him credit for not being as pathetic as Clinton was on defending the country. But really, ordering the armed forces and intelligence community to hit back after 9/11 wasn’t something that required enormous genius.

      Bush was, at best, mediocre. That’s pretty much the standard in the GOP – mediocrity. As P.J. O’Rourke has said before, “Government stinks, and we can prove it!”

      • TJ King says:

        Mr Mark, Let me see if I got this right. You are either one of those pureified conservatives that is so in tune with the ideals of the movement that no politician will ever deserve a nod from your exquisitely perfect conclusions or you are a Ron Paul supporter, but either way your “No difference between the parties” meme is more about you than it is about discussing the topics… but OK, I’ll bite.

        You said: “The high-tech boom was the result of high tech. Entrepreneurial activity is the result of entrepreneurship. Success does not come from government…” Success at anything has never resulted from any policy of any government? As a proponent of limited government, I can’t believe I have to correct you on this, but your statement is ridiculous. This statement ignores the most basic premises of economics. Governments through out history have proven that they can do incredible damage and inhibit the growth and success of human achievement. Through “policies” that remove restrictions on human creativity, the usual result is a positive one. I understand your desire to deny Ronald Reagan any credit for allowing Americans to succeed is based on your need to toss around cynical memes, but I stand by my previous statement. Conservative “Policies” resulted in an economic boom. In this particular case the Reagan government performed in a manner that allowed Success to occur on an impressive scale.

        You said: “I’m not aware of GWB creating anything.” OK, so GWB has never created anything in your view? Viewpoints like yours are the reason we are living under Obamunism. Thank you very much.

        “…Businesses are built by the people who run them and work for them. In other words, politicians didn’t build that….” Per my previous description of the positive impact of diminishing the burdens that government has on human creativity, I have a feeling you are about to give me a Bill Clinton “meaning of ‘is’..” game. OK, I’ll play. Yes, GWB did not run from business to business flipping every burger at ever McDonalds. Ray Kroc didn’t either. Presidents can help or hurt the economy. Please tell me which President is the appropriate model future Chief Executives should follow or are they all the same as you seem to contend.

        You said: “ Re: “Gold Medal for Bush.” For what? Existing? For signing the BCRA? For adopting a Texas accent (family from Connecticut, I believe?) and pretending to be a “rancher”? For signing the Medicare prescription drug giveaway?…” There is no President I know of that I can agree with all his policies. I was only mentioning certain specific policies. I believe we were talking about economic issues, so I’m not sure why my comments have invited your “Bush is a frat boy” or “Bush is a fake” jabs. Bush moved to Texas when he was 2 from a Naval base in Michigan. I plead guilty to not being an expert on linguistics, but I am not sure if the Connecticut accent, if there is one, is so powerful that it can overpower a 54 year old man’s verbal habits accumulated from spending almost his entire life in Texas. Bush happens to be sandwiched between two Presidents that regularly change accents depending on their audience. I’m not aware of GWB altering his once in office. If you witnessed this, I defer to your keen powers of observation. I also was not aware that he was practicing “Ranching” without a license. I know Ranchers. Some have smaller holdings than Bush. Some have fewer livestock and smaller hats than he did. I remember the same jab at Reagan for his fake equestrian hobby. Not sure where your going with that.

        You said: “I’ll give him credit for not being as pathetic as Clinton was on defending the country. But really, ordering the armed forces and intelligence community to hit back after 9/11 wasn’t something that required enormous genius. Bush was, at best, mediocre. That’s pretty much the standard in the GOP – mediocrity.” So Bush’s defending the country was pathetic, but of a degree less than Clinton. I don’t think he was pathetic at defending our country. Regarding 9/11, isn’t that always the comeback. Oh, Reagan defeating the mightiest foe ever faced by any people ever? Anyone could have done that. Just yesterday, our current President was criticizing his predecessor for the financial burden of the war in Afhganistan. That is one of his and many Democrats catchphrases. If he is true to his rhetoric, we can assume he disagrees with the premise of invading Afghanistan and it appears to be true since he is already planning on a hasty retreat soon after the November elections. Your implication that pretty much any pathetic, mediocre President of either party would have had boots on the ground in the Kunduz province within 72 hours of the collapse of the Twin towers is cynical and laughable monday morning quarterbacking and is about as revealing.

        My point was to refute the nature of the premise our President made that Bush is the locus of all evil and his policies were the primary cause of Obama’s woes. You apparently believe Obama’s policies were neither an improvement nor a step down, but no difference. I would really like to know who your model President is or when this golden age was, assuming it existed in the real world. Your broad statements about how the parties are pretty much the same and how Bush is about as pathetic as Democrats is the kind of talk that laid the foundation for Obama’s victory in 2008. Everybody likes to yell “kill the Ump”, because they are so much more clever than the ones who are calling the shots, and the need to blame others when things don’t go perfect is a natural but not necessarily admirable impulse. I’ve heard a lot of Ron Paul cult followers use that quote from PJ O’Rourke, but I’ve always liked another quote of his, “One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it’s remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver’s license.”

        • Mr. Mark says:

          My comment regarded your praise of Bush 43, a president I found to be unimpressive. Your reply begins with an assertion about my larger political beliefs and, unsurprisingly, you missed by a mile. I am the world’s foremost expert on me, so I will correct your inaccurate statement.

          I am not a Ron Paul supporter. There was not a candidate in the run for the Republican nomination that I agreed with sufficiently to support.

          I am a constitutionalist. I am an advocate of free markets. I am an advocate of individualism. I believe that a just government is one that complies with constitutional law. I believe the best philosophy of government is strongly libertarian. I believe that best society is strongly socially conservative. I believe that government should be barred from defining societal values. I have disgust for advocates of socialism and statism. I feel disappointment regarding the big-L libertarians as so many of them seek a curtailment of government reach not because of their belief in liberty but because they practice loathsome lifestyles. I think that life is a continuous conflict between right and wrong. I reject that any government or set of laws can determine or apply a perfect morality. I think that society’s flaws are those of the individuals that make up the society. Career politicians and their associates disgust me thoroughly. I vote for the best platform available. I am ALWAYS disappointed with the choices.

          When a politician, a bureaucrat, an officer, even an enlisted service member takes a federal position, they swear (or affirm) an oath. The constitution is the law of the land. Either you act in such a way as to comply with your oath or you dishonor it. That so many politicians have no regard for their oath or for the law does not erode my notion of duties, responsibilities, and loyalties.

          Regarding your other nonsense statements….

          First, I don’t need government to “allow” me to be productive. I don’t ask government permission to do my job. I don’t need government to “remove” obstacles. GOVERNMENT IS THE OBSTACLE.

          Second, “viewpoints like mine” are not the reason we are living under “Obamunism.” Viewpoints like mine would not resulted in the running of a candidate like McCain. I would sooner shoot myself in the foot than vote for McCain or anyone with a similar voting record to him. Also, your term “Obamunism” implies that Obama is a communist. No. He’s not that. He is a corrupt leader more in the mold of banana republic dictator. He is perfectly okay with private enterprise as long as there’s something in it for him and his supporters.

          Third, your response to my comments on 9/11 completely misses what I said. You have engaged in the Straw Man fallacy, having constructed a phony argument, presented as mine, and then played out a fantasy of attacking it. I said that Bush did a better job than Clinton of defending the country but that ordering the machines of war to do their business was not something that required great genius. There aren’t ten people in red states who would have had a lot of difficulty deciding what to do on 9/11. I made no statements criticizing the way in which the war was carried out. I certainly made no mention of “boots on the ground” (one of the most idiotic phrases ever to be popularized in by the media).

          I made no mention of Obama anywhere in my comment. All references to him in your response are products of your own hallucinations. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. I can’t think of any I would be willing to support. I will be voting for Romney and Ryan in November. But I’m not impressed with either. I am disgusted with the Republican party. I am disgusted with the media. I am disgusted with labor unions. I am disgusted with socialist academia. My favorite president was either George Washington or James Madison. I haven’t decided which. I don’t determine right vs. wrong by way of popularity. If I’m the only one in the world who agrees with me, that doesn’t change my mind one iota. Conflict, strife, and struggle are normal. Justice only exists with God.

          • TJ King says:

            You said…“My comment regarded your praise of Bush 43, a president I found to be unimpressive. Your reply begins with an assertion about my larger political beliefs and, unsurprisingly, you missed by a mile. I am the world’s foremost expert on me, so I will correct your inaccurate statement…” An expert I don’t doubt, but since I am more interested in the objectivity of truth and not your subjective opinion of yourself, I can tell you have an intimiate relationship with “innaccurate statements”. I mentioned two possible assertions on your political identity and since you are not, as you say, a Ron Paul supporter, then you have proven in your responses to be the former, a pureified conservatives that sees himself as so in tune with the ideals of the movement that no politician will ever deserve a nod from your exquisitely perfect conclusions. Your final remarks about how all these people that do not agree with you disgust you and your remark, “If I’m the only one in the world who agrees with me, that doesn’t change my mind one iota.”, seals the deal.
            In 2008, there were a lot of “more conservative than thou” voters that failed to support the candidate that would have kept Obama out of office and they were the same ones that failed to stand up to the left in Bush’s second term, and their mantra was, “If only Bush were a true believer like me…”. That helped no one but the left and it was an attempt to paint your self as the lone voice in the wilderness that is too clever for the rest of the conservative movement. Clever enough to hand the Presidency to a leftist like Obama.
            I agree, Obama is not a communist and yes, you are right he is more akin to a banana republic dictator or a wannabe fascist. Clinton began the transformation of the Democrat party away from a strategy of owning the housing projects and the means of production to one of controlling elements of the private sector to act as front men, so when the housing projects crumble, they blame some greedy capitalist. That is the playbook that protects Fannie Mae as they jerk around the private sector and then blame them when the outhouse fell over. Obama and the media took this new form of national socialism to the next level. This propaganda is the nature of Obama’s Bush ate my homework meme that I was addressing in the initial post. Your third and fourth paragraphs are well said and almost an exact reflection of my own constitutionalist beliefs. It is when you start veering off in to how everybody disgusts you and when you vote, you are always disappointed that I part company with you. I think that is kind of sad that a person that seems to have such a keen understanding of the messages our founders sent has such a bitter view of the process by which we defend their legacy. But that is merely a sentiment and opinion on my part.
            You said, “…Second, “viewpoints like mine” are not the reason we are living under “Obamunism.” Viewpoints like mine would not resulted in the running of a candidate like McCain. I would sooner shoot myself in the foot than vote for McCain or anyone with a similar voting record to him…”
            You have the right to opt out. But I stand by what I said earlier. The fact that conservatives that share your general view followed your example and failed to support or cast a vote for McCain, handed the reigns of power to the most radical nutcase ever to hold the office. No amount of warm and cozy smugness in your ivory tower will make the election of 2008 a good outcome for the rest of America.
            So again, with your previous misguided attempt to hang a “You didnt build that” meme on me, here we go again…
            You said…”Regarding your other nonsense statements….
            First, I don’t need government to “allow” me to be productive. I don’t ask government permission to do my job. I don’t need government to “remove” obstacles. GOVERNMENT IS THE OBSTACLE…”

            This is self contradictory and kind of silly. Is this some sort of militia movement bumper sticker? If as you say, no, YELL! “GOVERNMENT IS THE OBSTACLE..” as if we haven’t attained your level of consciousness, then do we just live with the obstacle or do we try to do something about it, and if as you say you “don’t need government to “remove” obstacles” then how do we ever remove the obstacle that government is? Do we form a squad of government removing technicians or something? Help me out here! Maybe in your bitterness about the fruitlessness of elections you have missed the essence of the conservative movement. We attempt to elect individuals akin to Reagan that are willing to climb the Volcano and cast as much of the beast over the edge. Did Reagan, by becoming a part of the government, remove ALL obstacles? No, did he remove some, yes. And yes, I know governments are populated with people, and the people are individuals, blaw, blaw… OK, give it up. You’re barking up the wrong tree. Government is the vehicle by which we shrink government. Sorry. I very clearly did not say government “allows” you to be productive. I described governments that “can do incredible damage and inhibit the growth and success of human achievement. Through “policies” that remove restrictions on human creativity, the usual result is a positive one”. You are the one with straw men here. You are trying to make it sound like my statement is an Obama type “Government is primary”. Just because governments are not primary and are created by men to serve at the consent of the governed does not mean they are incapable of inhibiting productivity and creativity. If you have some sort of “Super Powers” that allow you to perform in any way you wish regardless of the laws and actions of an intrusive government then you do not share the same reasons the rest of us mortal members of the conservative movement have to limit government. As I said above, your conservative principles are admirable, but your broad, nonsensical, self serving statements undercut your arguments.

            You said, “…Third, your response to my comments on 9/11 completely misses what I said. You have engaged in the Straw Man fallacy, having constructed a phony argument, presented as mine, and then played out a fantasy of attacking it. I said that Bush did a better job than Clinton of defending the country but that ordering the machines of war to do their business was not something that required great genius….”

            No, I didn’t miss what you said, No I didn’t engage in a straw man fallacy and no I didn’t construct a phony argument and then present them as yours. I quoted you exactly and you have now re-written your quote here in a vain attempt to create a straw man of your own. If you believe in Individual responsibility as you claim, you will stand by your words or retract them. I quoted you as saying “I’ll give him credit for not being as pathetic as Clinton was on defending the country.” Now you have attempted to pretend that you said this, which is your second quote, “I said that Bush did a better job than Clinton of defending the country…”
            Your new statement is a comparative one crediting Bush with “doing a better job”, Your original is in line with your self agrandizing penchant for ragging on other conservatives for not being as clever as you. Your original statement although also comparative, describes Bush’s defense of our country as being pathetic, but to a degree that is less pathetic. I consider that offensive and I think you realize it sounds ridiculous or you wouldn’t have tried to run from it. Again, your statement is self contradictory. In admitting that there is a comparison to Clinton, you point to the obvious example of a President that had several opportunities to effectively confront Islamic terrorist groups, but failed. In fact, he often found himself on the same side of the terrorists and even helped them deliver arms from place to place. More people were killed by Islamic terrorists before 9/11, than occurred on that day and the response up to that point was not only pathetic, it encouraged the monsters to bring their evil to our shores. Yet, the premise of your original remark is that what Bush did was a No brainer that any one could have done, or would have done. Since we can’t travel to alternate universes, we can only look at the examples of others and the criticisms of other policies. I have given two, one is the “anyone can do that” meme of the left on Reagan, and the other is Clinton’s many missed opportunities such as his launching cruise missiles in to Afghanistan that OBL sold to the Chinese for reverse engineering. Your remarks fail to notice how very different a Democrat would have defended our country and minimizing the differences only helps the left.
            You said, “…I made no mention of Obama anywhere in my comment. All references to him in your response are products of your own hallucinations. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. I can’t think of any I would be willing to support….”
            I never claimed that you voted for Obama so regarding your statement about my hallucinating, a recommend you set aside the acid and revisit my remarks so we remain in the real world. I did try to convey that when conservatives try to impress others with their conservative credentials by failing to vote for the Republican presidential candidate as you have admitted you did, they provide the means for radicals of the left like Obama to take power. In a sense those people are casting a vote for Obama, by failing to nullify an Obama vote,…so again, to your gang, thanks for the last 3 and a half years of Obama.
            You said, “…I will be voting for Romney and Ryan in November. But I’m not impressed with either. I am disgusted with the Republican party. I am disgusted with the media. I am disgusted with labor unions. I am disgusted with socialist academia….”
            No, your not bitter. It doesn’t take much to disgust you. You do realize politics is not theology where it can exist in a perfect realm and be placed on a shelf. It happens in the real world. Reagan’s 11th commandment reflects his ability to be the most conservative politician we could have hoped for at the time, but smart enough to create a large enough tent in the Republican party to bludgeon the Democrats. You can be disgusted with the GOP if you like, but it is the only vehicle at this time to stop what you and I both agree is a third world dictator in the making. If you want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, you will, as you said, always be disappointed, which is kind of sad.

            When you said, “My comment regarded your praise of Bush 43, a president I found to be unimpressive.” Its clear that set you off. My original post, had 13 bullet points that commented on the actions of 5 different Presidents. The only one that explicitly focused on GWB’s achievements was #8 and the point of that particular item was intended to be a refutation of Obama’s premise, which was the premise of the AEI article. I was not praising Bush as a man or praising his every move. I was focusing on a specific aspect of his Presidency. You jumped on this factual statement and showed your contempt for him by making broad statements, and to use your phrase, building “straw men” and then you rambled off about his faking an accent and faking being a rancher. I find it interesting you go back two centuries before you can find a President that sets an example for modern Presidents, which is not very helpful to the question I asked you. I will say again, your recitation of your core beliefs shows me that you’ve read the conservative gospels, but like a monk, you have chosen to take the gospels in to the wilderness and not apply them in the world that needs them the most.

            You said “…My favorite president was either George Washington or James Madison. I haven’t decided which. I don’t determine right vs. wrong by way of popularity. If I’m the only one in the world who agrees with me, that doesn’t change my mind one iota. Conflict, strife, and struggle are normal. Justice only exists with God…”

            There have been three great Presidents, judging on the innovations and challenges of their presidency alone Washington, Lincoln and Reagan. (Some Presidents are near great). As I mentioned Reagan believed in a large tent, but was also able to lead. Lincoln, our first GOP President also was able to lead and believe in a big tent. He even surrounded himself with Democrats. Washington was the greatest. He lead like no other and he acted as a bridge between the two parties, yet, for all intents and purposes, he was a Federalist and a conservative and he distrusted the Francophiles and the left in the Democrat party. He was well read and disliked the left wing followers of Godwin and Condorcet and appreciated Burke’s writings as well as the Adam Smith influenced economics of Hamilton. The fact that these three great Presidents all shared the ability to build coalitions and lead those broad coalitions “towards” a conservative ideal that bolstered the most Liberty possible, shows that the two ideals are not mutually exclusive. Its just very hard to do. One can be the most conservative person in the room and still engage in a less than perfect political ocean of differing interests. Yes, Conflict, Strife and struggle are normal, so may I recommend you overcome your angst with the rest of the conservative movement and come down from your mountain top and support the rest of us mortals who are trying to save the world from the Despotic left. We get it. You are a smart conservative, but this whole theme of yours about both parties being disgusting but to lesser degrees or pathetic but to differing degrees is actually working against those working to preserve Liberty.

            For what its worth, I met GWB when he was a very young man and his accent was just as Texan as it was during his Presidency, so the conspiracy you posit was a very well planned scheme. Good eye.

  11. jax says:

    One Democrat President, Truman, put a sign on his oval office desk, “ALL BUCK STOP HERE”. What happened? Too long ago?

  12. stonedome says:

    i also seem to remember us pulling out of a nose after 9/11…imagine if we had another assault on the u s of that magnitude today? king hussein already has us on our backs…time to stand up

  13. richard40 says:

    I was never a huge fan of Bush, but your article makes a good point. Bush was not really to blame for the recession, at worst he shared blame with the dems and the fed. In any event, continuing to blame bush 4 yrs later is the height of buck passing.

  14. Tim S says:

    do not forget Bush and later McCain tried to re-regulate Fannie and Freddie and we know who stopped that –

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance#.UHG92KOz7Zc

Leave a Reply

Mobile Theme | Switch To Regular Theme