Obama out to destroy America?

President Obama was reelected in 2012 by about the same plurality than Bush won in 2004. He lost support from 2008, i.e. when people got to know him. In the midterm elections he said, “make no mistake. My policies are on the ballot.” That election resulted in the biggest whuppin/thumpin/shellackin in a generation. Yet Obama thinks he somehow won and has a mandate to change America. He is now exceeding his authority, according to his own earlier - and often repeated - statements. So what is up with this guy?

Obama evidently believes that his authority is derived from some metaphysical will of the people, rather than the one demonstrated by the voters. He want to change America in ways that the majority clearly has rejected. He wants to push so far that future presidents with better sense and more support will be unable to fix in any reasonable way.

I chose an extreme title to get people thinking about it. What would it mean to "destroy" America? Obviously, we are not talking about physical destruction or overthrow of all our institutions. But we are talking about change significant enough to make America very different from the one most of us know and love.


The immigration gambit is the most dangerous. He has arrogated to himself powers that presidents have never exercised except in times of national emergency. His rationale is what is most troubling. He is sick of waiting.

This implies that he is a king or the boss in ways America is not meant to be. It is not his place to be sick of waiting. It is part of his job to wait and persuade. It is thuggish to say that, "I'll give you guys a couple of weeks and then ..." He was also cowardly and dishonest. He waited until AFTER the elections. Had he done it before, it would have been clear from the election results what Americans thought of his actions. Maybe they would have approved, but Obama didn't think so. In any case, he deprived the American people of the opportunity to be heard on this and certainly now has no right to say he is speaking for them.

The Republic has survived worse than Barack Obama, but he is pretty bad. He really was unqualified for the office. That is not very surprising. The presidency is a unique job. Nobody comes in qualified. But good presidents grow into it. Obama is smaller now than when he took office. He seems unable to learn and unwilling even to try.

We have to endure two more years of this. Obama can do lots of damage in that time, but we can recover if we pick someone next time who has some real government experience and is a little less arrogant. Let's not get fooled again into thinking that hope for change is good enough.

Posted by Christine & John at November 21, 2014 11:17 PM
Comments
Comment #385901

C/J asks…”So what is up with this guy?”

Narcissism, dementia, self-delusion, and lust for power.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 22, 2014 2:06 PM
Comment #385914

I just completed something very interesting. Although I have not been contributing on WB very long, I went back in the achieves; back to the Spring of 2009. I actually did so for the purpose of seeing how C&J responded to the election of Obama. C&J seem to be more moderate in their comments; but this post, along with a few others recently posted, have caused me to see a change in their attitude towards Obama. Anyway, I ended up reading posts written by Stephen Daugherty. Since Stephen has stated he has been here for at least a decade. This is a montage of remarks made by Stephen Daugherty, and I’m only assuming in a giddy state of victory after Obama and the Democrat’s victory of 2008. It appears Stephen was happy because he thought 8 years of Bush had pushed America to the brink of “Destruction” and the emergence of Liberalism was what America wanted and needed to bring sanity back to the country. Without further adieu, we present Stephen Daugherty’s opinion of the Obama victory:

“His Success is Our Success”
By Stephen Daughtery, on Jan. 22, 2009
Comment #274065

kctim-
The great big difference between what I want and what Republicans wanted with their President is that President Obama has earned the respect of many on the other side, and does not engage in the kind of divisive Rovian politics that Bush did.

It is one thing to encourage people to unite with you when your leaders are willing to do outreach, to have some humility. It’s quite another to call for unity and then berate, bombard, and humiliate the people you’re expecting to get on board.

Comment #274091

Call it people skills. Obama’s not looking to have a flamboyant political battle every time he wants something. He’s looking to create a power base that actually has some power.

It’s the kind of politics I’ve been speaking about for a long time: instead of using differences to drive wedges, he uses similarities to create bridges to otherwise indifferent or even hostile groups. Result? People are less hostile, less indifferent to Obama than they were with Bush.

Comment #274286

In short, I think people want liberalism more than you think they do.

The Republican Congressional majorities have been not only overturned but completely reversed. Call me crazy, but does that not constitute a shift towards liberalism? If people are making that decision to elect these people, knowing what their political inclinations are, how is applying the mandate forcing liberalism on folks?

The system is set up so that the majority rules. In a sense, you could say that things are forced on the minority by the majority, but in another sense, this is what you folks signed up for; the implicit agreement of Democracy that we consent to is that whoever gets the majority writes the rules, makes the decisions.

This is done, so when the tide turns and tensions pull back in our favor, we have legitimacy to our own “forcing” of our views on others.

If we are really forcing things, there will be a backlash. If we are not, people will simply go about their business. That’s Democracy. That’s being held accountable as an elected official. We’ll see how it goes. I just thing that the threshold is further to the left than you care to admit, and you resent where it is now.

I wonder if Stephen Daugherty still supports these comments, or does he now see how silly he sounded?

1. Has he been divisive, is he humble, and most of all, has he called for “unity and then berate, bombard, and humiliate the people you’re expecting to get on board”?

2. Does he still have people skills, does he drive wedges, or are “people are less hostile, less indifferent to Obama than they were with Bus”?

3. Do people still want liberalism? These comments by Stephen need to be quoted once more:

The system is set up so that the majority rules. In a sense, you could say that things are forced on the minority by the majority, but in another sense, this is what you folks signed up for; the implicit agreement of Democracy that we consent to is that whoever gets the majority writes the rules, makes the decisions.

This is done, so when the tide turns and tensions pull back in our favor, we have legitimacy to our own “forcing” of our views on others.

If we are really forcing things, there will be a backlash. If we are not, people will simply go about their business. That’s Democracy. That’s being held accountable as an elected official. We’ll see how it goes. I just thing that the threshold is further to the left than you care to admit, and you resent where it is now.

1. Does the majority still rule, or has Daugherty changed his mind?

2. Do the majority still write the rules?

3. Since the Democrats took a real whooping, are the Republicans legitimate in forcing their views on others?

4. Were the Democrats held accountable for forcing their views.

Sorry to pick on Stephen Daugherty, I could have chosen any of the liberals. I find it interesting how opinions change with wins and losses.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 22, 2014 5:44 PM
Comment #385915

Aren’t archives wonderful? I used this to kick start C&J’s article; since the opinion of the left in 2008 was that Bush was destroying the country.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 22, 2014 5:52 PM
Comment #385920

SJ, thanks for taking the time, this is great.

Posted by: George at November 22, 2014 6:28 PM
Comment #385923

SJ,

If you ever want to give me the archival treatment, keep in mind that I used to comment anonymously under the pseudonym “Warped Reality”.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2014 7:36 PM
Comment #385924

Thanks for the info, but I read a few days ago on one of your comments, that you used Warped Reality. A strange handle, until one realizes you are a liberal, LOL

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 22, 2014 7:40 PM
Comment #385925

Sam Jones,
Let us know the various names you’ve used on WB, and we will be glad to give you an equal opportunity to look great.

Posted by: phx8 at November 22, 2014 7:41 PM
Comment #385928

My old name was built off my real name: Warren Porter.

Turning Warp into Warped Reality was the logical next step. It was a bit of a homage to Einstein’s theory of relativity, which tells us that every object with a mass warps spacetime (aka reality) thereby endowing those objects with gravity.

If I recall, I also briefly used the names Warren and Warren P.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2014 8:14 PM
Comment #385929

All

I was supportive of Obama in the past. I wanted to give him a chance and maybe I was even a little taken in by the hope and change. I hoped he would grow into the job. He did not. In fact, he has been a disappointment to me and to most Americans.

From your archive research, you can see by the evidence that I was not an “Obama hater.” Unlike some others, I can give the benefit of the doubt.

My current piece was not meant to hate Obama. I have come to believe that he is unable or unwilling to learn on the job. I also see that he wants to change America in ways I think are wrong and that he is willing to use methods that American presidents generally do not.

BTW - if you check Stephen you will find that he never changes his arguments, just the targets. We had a lot of fun with him. If you want to really insult Obama or Democrats, just mine some of Stephen’s comments about Bush & Republicans and change the names. If he doesn’t immediately recongize the comments, he will complain that conservatives really hate Obama and that nobody ever got those kinds of insults before.

Posted by: C&J at November 22, 2014 8:17 PM
Comment #385933

I read many of the comments; in fact I became engrossed with them. The things said about Bush by he left, are the very things the left accuses Republicans of saying about Obama today; and the things the left said that Obama would never do under his presidency, is the very thing Obama is doing today. I noticed that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News were the subject of the left’s attacks in Jan. 2009, the month Obama was sworn in. They said the same things about Rush and Fox as they do today, before Obama’s reign (as king) ever really started. So the left’s crystal ball told them to attack Rush and Fox, long before Rush and Fox attacked Obama. But overall, things haven’t changed much; Daugherty still writes lengthy responses, some liberals tried to discuss intelligently, and some liberals were idiots then and remain so 6 years later.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 22, 2014 8:33 PM
Comment #385934

C&J, question; were Christine and Jack the same C&J? I noticed Christine wrote in several places, but you did not respond in the same posts.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 22, 2014 8:37 PM
Comment #385935

Since we’re talking about Stephen Daugherty, I’d like to say something that relates to his long comments and posts.

Stephen Daugherty used to post his efforts to write a book, of fiction, I believe. His posts were not political. He would post them for people to read and comment on.

See if you can find some of them, Sam Jones.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 22, 2014 9:08 PM
Comment #385937
long before Rush and Fox attacked Obama
Wrong. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2014 9:20 PM
Comment #385938
were Christine and Jack the same C&J? I noticed Christine wrote in several places, but you did not respond in the same posts.

Yes.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2014 9:33 PM
Comment #385942

Warren, the attacks on Rush and Fox for the past few years have been that they lied to the American people over Obama’s accomplishments. Obama himself is still saying the “American people do not understand what I have done for them”. He is still campaigning, after 6 years, trying to tell America of his accomplishments. It doesn’t take Rush or Fox to understand Obama’s failures. They are just the whipping posts. Deflect the story away from Obama and toward Rush and Fox.

By the Warren, what do you think of Daugherty’s comments about Emperor Obama 6 years ago compared to reality today? It turned out that Obama was nothing like the picture Daugherty painted of him.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 22, 2014 10:13 PM
Comment #385944

Sam

Christine and John are the same as C&J. Christine wrote a few things, but doesn’t participate much. She has a shorter attention span for these things and maybe is just smarter. Christine tends to be a little more conservative, which evidently surprises some people. Some people on the blog claim to be able to tell the difference between us, but I don’t think they can.

Posted by: C&J at November 22, 2014 10:50 PM
Comment #385960
…. since the opinion of the left in 2008 was that Bush was destroying the country. Posted by: Sam Jones at November 22, 2014 5:52 PM

Sam this false premise you seem to be trying to cultivate is beneath even you. Comparing apples to oranges as if they were one and the same.

The simple fact is your guys promoted laws to build a police state, enslave us to the money lenders, started a war and charged it to our grandchildren whilst cutting taxes on the war mongers and running up the national debt off the books causing the country to fall into depression with the deregulation of the monied class and the collapse of the economic system, not to mention the country being over run with illegal immigration.

Lets compare that with where we are today. Out of the depression, out of Iraq, deficit falling, but still enslaved to the moneylenders, and the police state is growing. Obama finally acted on immigration. Yet the conservatives claim it is Obama destroying America. Have you no shame, are you guys so blinded to reality as to believe this tripe?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 23, 2014 10:49 AM
Comment #385963

j2t2

We disagree about the presidents.

In any case, however, compare Bush in 2006 with Obama today, i.e. year 6. In that year, unemployment was below 5%, the economy was growing, the Iraq situation was turning around, tax revenues were at all time highs, the deficit was shrinking and in 2006 - for the first time ever anywhere - CO2 emissions were dropping during the time of robust economic growth.

You can look into the future past today, but in 2006 things looked much better than they do today and yet we had vitriolic attacks on Bush.

Posted by: C&J at November 23, 2014 11:38 AM
Comment #385976
You can look into the future past today, but in 2006 things looked much better than they do today and yet we had vitriolic attacks on Bush.

2006, C&J what next? look back to the 1960’s! How funny, the days of blissful exuberance we all felt the housing market was going up forever, the roaring twenties all over again, then boom the legs fell off the economy.

The fact is GWB was still doubling the debt in 2006, the war was being charged on a credit card and the medicare increases were still unfunded during the boom times! The illegals were flooding across the borders taking construction jobs and driving wages down then C&J.Hell C&J GWB held the gates open, what did he or any conservative in Congress do about it?

In fact what have the repubs in the HoR done since that time but hold up any actions on immigration reform. Now they complain because Obama told them put up or shut up. We all seem to forget it is Congress that makes the laws, probably because they have refused to do so for so long.

GWB and supposedly fiscally responsible repubs in Congress were destroying the economic system for millions of Americans C&J, and they didn’t seem to care! I assume because it was an open bar and the deficit didn’t matter for some reason then.

But hey lets talk executive orders C&J. Here is a list of GWB’s do you wanna count them and
and then figure out how many times conservatives deemed them to be a threat to the country, an usurpation of congressional powers?

One more issue to address C&J, some conservatives are using the rational of “well they did it to” as a defense of their gross exaggerations such as “Obama out to destroy America?” The problem is this “little kids” argument is without merit, IMHO, because as we saw in 2007 the policies of GWB did bring this country and most of the world to it’s knees. What liberals were saying was much more factual. Telling us Obama is destroying the world when in fact his policies have got us standing on our feet again just rings hollow.


Posted by: j2t2 at November 23, 2014 3:46 PM
Comment #385977

j2t2, I’m not being sarcastic when I say I think you might be coming around to a “centrist” or “moderate” point of view.

I base it on your saying both parties are responsible for our current state of affairs, and now saying the “little kids” argument is without merit.

I’m looking forward to beginning a constructive conversation about a positive outlook both sides can agree with.

I think you’re playing a more valuable part in the “identify the problem” phase of problem solving.

I’ll put my perspective about blame into words. We’re all to blame for the condition of our country. From the right to the left, from the old to the young, from the rich to the poor, from the intelligent to the stupid, we’re all to blame.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2014 3:57 PM
Comment #385986

j2t2

I am just pointing out the proper point of reference. We don’t know what could happen to Obama in the next two years to make him look better or worse. We have to compare Obama in years six to Bush in year six. At that time, the left attacked Bush savagely. I am pointing out that in Bush year six, the economy was in better shape, unemployment was much lower, wealth was higher, tax revenues were at all time highs and the deficit was shrinking. If you say Obama’s unemployment rate of below 6% is good, how is it that you thought Bush’s of under 5% was bad?

Bush was NOT doubling the debt in 2006. Revenues were all time high and the deficit was shrinking.

So you can argue that Bush came to a bad end, but you did not know this in 2006, so you had no more right to attack Bush back then than Americans do be disappointed with Obama today.

Posted by: C&J at November 23, 2014 6:52 PM
Comment #385987
you did not know this in 2006, so you had no more right to attack Bush back then

I’m not going to take the time to search through the archives, but my memory tells me the criticism of George Bush in 2006 centered around the following:

— The War in Iraq, which did not show any signs of improvement.

— The War on Terrorism in Afghanistan, where there were no indications that OBL would ever face justice.

— Grossly incompetent handling of FEMA’s response to hurricane Katrina in 2005.

— The attempt to pass a disastrously unpopular reform of Social Security

— Lack of government action to fight climate change.

— Lack of government action to address stagnant wages.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2014 7:05 PM
Comment #385992

Jack,

“So you can argue that Bush came to a bad end, but you did not know this in 2006, so you had no more right to attack Bush back then than Americans do be disappointed with Obama today.”

I hate to bring this up during the right’s theoretical moment of triumph, but…

You want to compare Bush to Obama, yet you leave out the juciest parts.

Bush told us all he knew what he was doing yet left the troops in Iraq, you know the troops the right told everybody who would listen the left didn’t support, twisting in the wind while he fiddled about with the idea of a surge.

Bush left Obama a bag of horse**it and the right has demanded that it be made into ice cream, not soon, but right now.
Oh, and then accuse him of being in over his head.

The right has thrown every piece of crap against the wall just to find if anything at all might stick.
Lindsy Graham is losing his mind over the thought that the panel appointed by the republicans has said they were wrong about Bengazi.

All this mythinformation, and yet no actual evidence.

Who’da thunk it?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 23, 2014 8:31 PM
Comment #385993

Rocky

Let me be very clear. I believe Bush will be rated better than Obama by historians 20 years from now.

But that is not the subject at hand. J2t2 is decrying that fact that Obama is being attacked today and saying that it is especially bad. When we point out that Bush got treatment at least as bad, he says there is no comparison and mentions events of 2007-8.

In order to judge the vitriol, we have to judge at similar times in their presidencies.

The fact is that Bush was criticized as vigorously as Obama and at this point in his presidency his record was better.

Warren

There was indeed criticism of Iraq. But there was also plenty on the economy. I recall writing lots of articles explaining that unemployment under 5% was good and that the record setting revenues were positive.

This is what I wrote after the Democratic victory in 2006. I welcomed them.
http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/004448.html

A little earlier I talked about the 4.4% unemployment. http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/004425.html

Do you think opponents were as generous?

Posted by: C&J at November 23, 2014 9:03 PM
Comment #385994

This is what I wrote in November 2006. Sounds okay.

More Bad News: Unemployment Drops to 4.4%

The changing economy makes it harder to measure jobs data. The household survey, that includes the self-employed, counted 426,000 new jobs in September, while the payroll survey shows only 92,000. (Payroll data are often revised). The consistent measure is the unemployment rate. It doesn’t get much better than 4.4%. Economists (especially liberal ones like Paul Krugman) used to say unemployment could not drop below 5.5-6%. With Bush they raised the bar.

Labor markets are getting tighter. The number of discouraged workers fell this year. The share of working age people participating in the labor force, by either working or looking for work, was 66.2% in October, little changed over the last year. Median wages will probably rise as markets tighten.

These developments should come as no surprise. The economy has been doing well since 2003. Democrats can be excused for being surprised, since they have been unable to see any good economic news even when it stares them in the face.

We still have troubles. Federal tax collections jumped 11.8 percent last year, so the Feds collected an extra $254 billion. We are taking in big money, but we are spending it faster. We need to cut spending.

Maybe those Dems will make the necessary cuts if they win the House. They can use old Republican ideas if they have none of their own. I have not heard their actual proposals, but those of you who favor hope over experience can assume they have some.
Posted by Jack at November 4, 2006 11:42 PM

Posted by: C&J at November 23, 2014 9:11 PM
Comment #385996

Jack,

While I will not rave about the performance of Obama, I will not stand idly by as the mythinformation is continually spread.
You apparently ignored my point about the “ice cream”.

George W faced no such issues.

Yeah, Sept. 11th was tragic, and it had it’s challenges, but it was also a point in time where the country, not to mention the planet actually came together. Bush had an opportunity the likes of which we will not see again soon.

And he blew it.

Instead of pulling us all together in support, he told us to go shopping. He scared the population sh**less and told us to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect ourselves from a gas attack (which, BTW, was the dumbest idea ever).

Bush paid for his gambit in Iraq with our children’s and grand children’s money. Had Bush asked us to pay for his war it is quite possible he would not have handed off to Obama a country who’s economy was in flames.

No, I totally disagree with your premise.

I will bet you a dollar that history will show Obama played the hand he was dealt the best anyone possibly could.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 23, 2014 11:21 PM
Comment #385997

Rocky

Good chance that in 20 years I will be dead. I would take the bet. Let me stipulate that neither Bush nor Obama will be called a great president. Both will fall below the median.

But - again - I am limited the scope here. The question was not who was the better president. The complaint was that Obama was being abused beyond the usual. My point was - and remains - that Bush got as much crap as Obama and that we have to take year six as the measure point, since Obama still has not finished his term.

I hope Obama will be lucky, since I have little confidence in his skill in leadership, even if he is a superb, albeit negative, campaigner.

Posted by: C&J at November 23, 2014 11:51 PM
Comment #386006
But that is not the subject at hand. J2t2 is decrying that fact that Obama is being attacked today and saying that it is especially bad. When we point out that Bush got treatment at least as bad, he says there is no comparison and mentions events of 2007-8.

C&J, as they say “and now the rest of the story”…..
First of all lets remember it was Sam who decided 2008 was acceptable as that is when he went back to see what others on WB had said at the time and it was his
“little kids” argument I was responding to. Secondly not only did I mention the financial meltdown of ‘08 I mentioned the work of GWB and the conservatives in Congress during both the first and second term of GWB. Not just the 2007, 2008 period as you would have us believe.

Now lets go back and look at why many people, myself included, thought GWB deserved the negative attention he got from those on the left side of the aisle. When GWB took office the budget didn’t have a deficit it was running in surplus. Of course GWB remedied that and started running a deficit. You also include to choose bits of pre-crash financial data that give you a warm and fuzzy but fail to take into account the hole dug by conservatives that left the country shattered economically by the time GWB took office. You fail to include the off the books costs GWB ran up during his administration in your defense of his “accomplishments”.

Most importantly by insisting upon a year for year analysis as being the only means for judging the two leaders you miss the starting point each began their administration at, an apples and orange comparison in this case IMHO. Specifically the unemployment rate as a means of measurement is a bit underhanded IMHO as the country was hemorrhaging jobs by the million as GWB was leaving office, quite the opposite of when he came into office. One can only guess what shape the country would have been in had Obama not been elected and GWB or McCaim/Palin had been left to continue the deconstruction of this once great nation.
So in summary C&J, you point to GWB lowering deficits in 2006 I pointed to the debt increasing throughout his term and the surpluses GWB inherited upon taking office. You point to the unemployment rate in year 6 (and at the height of the boom that would later bring the country to its knees) yet fail to mention the number of those jobs that were government jobs that later were decried by conservatives and helped to keep the country in the great recession as they were eliminated by conservatives in the Obama era.


Posted by: j2t2 at November 24, 2014 8:16 AM
Comment #386025

j2t2

As I have explained to you many times, sometimes even in defense of Obama, economic events have lag times. The economy began to slow in 2000, before Bush was elected and certainly before Bush policies could have had an effect. Revenues also began to decline at that time, before the tax cuts. In 2006, even with tax cuts, revenues hit all time highs and the deficit was shrinking. In 2006 you had no reason to criticize Bush with such vitriol, or at least those currently criticizing Obama have similar justification.

Let’s take the two parallels. You don’t blame Obama for what happened in the first two years of his presidency. You similarly cannot blame Bush. At about two years (2003 & 2011 respectively) we can say that their policies have had a chance to have some effect. Of course, with something as big as the U.S. economy, lots of things are at play.

Anyway, by Bush year six, unemployment rate was at full employment. It just doesn’t get better in any sustainable way. In Obama year six, we still have a way to go.

Posted by: C&J at November 24, 2014 5:40 PM
Comment #386051

Whilst I appreciate your ability to hone right in on the one issue GWB had going for him I also chuckle at how you seem to have forgotten the rest of the damage GWB and the conservatives in Congress inflicted upon the country without one word of criticism from conservatives. Unfunded wars and unfunded medicare whilst cutting taxes! Employers hiring illegals at lower wages in the construction industry!An increase in debt each year of the GWB administration without a word from conservatives! Enslaving the American people to the banking industry and the police state,diminishing our liberty without a word of criticism from conservatives!

I would also say your ability to not be able to see the differences in “the parallel” you have used as your reasoning for the “little kids” argument is comical. Trying to equate the 2001 recession and the 2008 depression is laughable. Especially when GWB increased the government payroll during this time frame without a word of criticism from conservatives. Yet only a few short years later it was just terrible and you criticized Obama for doing it.

Tax revenues were at an all time high in 2006 and we were still running a deficit C&J! We were charging the war and the unfunded medicare on the next generations credit cards without a word of criticism from conservatives. Yet now that the all time high tax revenues in year 6 of the GWB administration has been exceeded in year 6 of the Obama administration it seems to not make a difference, without being on the verge of an economic bubble, seems to me to be such a double standard.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 25, 2014 8:20 AM
Comment #386056

jt2t

honing in on the main issue - we need not compare the severity of the two slowdowns. My point is that both were “inherited” in that Bush’s policies could not have caused a slowdown that started before he was elected in 2000 and Obama could not have caused a slowdown that started in 2008 before he was elected.

I am also honing in on year 6 because that is the point of comparison. We do not know what fresh hell we might face in Obama’s last two years and nobody could have accurately foreseen problems that took place in the last two years of Bush. They were not unknown; they were unknowable, since a variety of factors came together to make the events happen.

So - keeping to my focus on the issue at hand - criticism of Obama today is similar to that Bush suffered in 2006. You can argue that Bush deserved it in your opinion, but you cannot argue that what Obama is facing is unique.

Posted by: C&J at November 25, 2014 8:58 AM
Comment #386085
So - keeping to my focus on the issue at hand - criticism of Obama today is similar to that Bush suffered in 2006. You can argue that Bush deserved it in your opinion, but you cannot argue that what Obama is facing is unique.

C&J, adjusting the facts to fit your narrative is no different than using the “little kids” argument. To think a minor business cycle recession compares to the economic meltdown and is equal in weight when making a determination such as you have is one of the weakest arguments you have attempted in some time. This apples and oranges comparison has no merit it is simply an excuse to justify the baser values of talk radio conservatives. It is a form of bullying, picking upon the weaker minds of movement followers and antagonizing them into action not unlike the methods of the German Workers Party chief propagandist.

Before you get all worked up I am not saying you are a Hitler or a Nazi I am saying this type of bullying has unintended consequences. I realize you use it because of its short term effectiveness but in the long run it damages the country.

Using false scandals and misinformation as justification for the vilification of Obama, especially since this vilification started day one and has continued for 6 years with one falsehood after another, one wrong assumption after another, stooping to use the power of the Congress to extend the economic collapse to the country just to be able to get even for honest criticisms of GWB as conservatives have done is no justification IMHO.

The difference between us C&J is those that criticized GWB and the conservative policies that wrecked havoc on the country were right in their criticism. Those who have vilified Obama have, in year 6, turned out to be wrong.

So to tell us the criticisms are not unique is wrong C&J. The fact is the criticism of GWB was proven to be factual where as the criticism of Obama has been myth misinformation half truths and outright lie, therein lies the difference.

And you claim to be the educated one.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 25, 2014 10:55 AM
Comment #386128

j2t2

“The difference between us C&J is those that criticized GWB and the conservative policies that wrecked havoc on the country were right in their criticism. Those who have vilified Obama have, in year 6, turned out to be wrong.”

This is not objectively true. There were good parts and challenges to both of the presidencies. Historians will figure this out. Obama will be remembered for being the first black president.

Posted by: C&J at November 25, 2014 7:52 PM
Comment #386129

Historians may C&J but seeings as the issue is the “little kids” argument used by conservatives to justify their vilification of Obama is nonsensical. We had to deal with these issues in real time not through the filter of time, especially with the conservative revisionist machine running at full bore.

The simple fact is throughout his administration GWB did damage to the country. Obama has corrected some of the mistakes made during that time frame but many nonpartisans held the GWB administration accountable for the damage in real time that conservatives let slide. Using the “little kid” defense is as I said earlier is laughable when you have to make up the damage to satisfy your hatred.

As GWB hisself said” Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we, they never stop thinking of ways to hurt our people and our country, neither do we.” and ultimately proved.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 25, 2014 8:32 PM
Comment #386136

j2t2

I don’t want to vilify Obama. I just don’t think he is very good at that leadership thing. And most Americans seem to agree.

I am not sure what “damage” you are talking about. The economic collapse did not result from Bush policies. The more we learn about the situation, the more we see that it was a confluence of factors, most not predictable with the tools generally available at time. Iraq was a mistake, but by 2008 we had a real chance. 9/11 would have happened and I suppose a President Gore would have reacted similarly. An interesting thing about Obama is how he his foreign policy is coming to resemble Bush’s. I have been in the foreign policy business for more than 30 years. There is a lot of rhetorical differences when a new president comes, but American interests do not change that fast and geography doesn’t change at all, so we tend to do similar things.

I gave a lecture at one of the war colleges last week. One of the questions was, “why do we Americans do so poorly in negotiations?” The answer is that we really do okay. In the past 50 years, we have had nothing but trouble, but the world is closer to something we would like. It is the dynamic of our system always to be complaining but doing okay.

Posted by: C&J at November 25, 2014 10:52 PM
Comment #386140
I don’t want to vilify Obama. I just don’t think he is very good at that leadership thing.

Yet you write a schlock piece with the title “Obama out to destroy AMerica” and defend it with many posts in this thread, who ya kidding C&J?

I am not sure what “damage” you are talking about.

Well that sure explains a lot. No wonder your responses to my comments have been so off base, you haven’t bothered to read them, but it sure isn’t because I have been intentionally vague about it C&J. Try reading what I have posted. Does doubling the debt ring any bells? Unfunded wars, unfunded medicare while cutting taxes?

The economic collapse happened on GWB’s watch C&J, of course he is responsible. Were it not for the dems him and Paulson would have handed over the treasury lock stock and barrel to the TBTF banks. When he left office we were hemorrhaging millions of jobs.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 26, 2014 1:02 AM
Comment #386168

I have been preaching since 2011 that the opportunity cost of Obama wasting 16 irreplaceable months on Obamacare gave us this outcome.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 26, 2014 10:37 PM
Comment #386396

[Enjoy this web bit before you-know-who censors it!]

Zany Obama-Inspired Quips

(1) Barack-coli: a vegetable or a national virus!

(2) Obama’s favorite candy: Mecca Wafers!

(3) Obama Coffee: grounds for impeachment!

(4) Prov. 17:7 (NIV): “Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool - how much worse lying lips to a ruler!”

(5) When Obama says we’re on the cutting edge of history, he must be thinking about beheadings!

(6) New nursery un-rhyme: Obaba Black Sheep keeps pulling the wool over our eyes!

(7) The southwest is running out of water, but Obama is helping with his surplus of wet*****!

(8) Prov. 19:10 (NIV): “It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury - how much worse for a slave to rule over princes!”

(9) Obama is an expert on beheading. After lunch he tells his secretary: “I’ll be heading back to the golf course!”

(10) The border fence isn’t high enough to keep out un-American criminals. I repeat, the White House fence isn’t high enough to keep out un-American criminals - and now they’re inside the White House!

(11) Prov. 30:21, 22 (NIV): “the earth…cannot bear up [under] a servant who becomes king.”

(12) We’ve gone from America’s Declaration of “unalienable rights” to Obama’s Proclamation of ALIENable rights!

(13) The nicest words Obama could repeat while golfing: “I’m having a stroke, I’m having a stroke”!

(14) Obama is so Islamically-correct he hosts MOSQUErade parties in the White House!

(For more kicks Google “Michelle Obama’s Allah-day” and “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”)


Posted by: Homer at December 8, 2014 5:53 PM
Post a comment