GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Challenge to our Critics:
Provide Examples of Bush Attacking Democrat
as Obama Attacks Republicans

by

Remember how presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to be a postpartisan leader transcending the partisan divisions which bedeviled Washington politics?  Well, not only has he abandoned that notion, but he’s ended up as quite the opposite, not postpartsian.

He has truly made his predecessor seem a uniter rather than the divider Obama partisans and the left made him out to be.

In a piece yesterday for Commentary‘s Contentions, Jennifer Rubin notes that the Democratic President excuses Democrats for casting the same vote which earns opprobrium for Republicans.  While the 44 Democrats who voted against Waxman-Markey (AKA Cap & Trade) did so because they were “sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue,” Republican who oppose the measure were “fear-mongering” and were “16 years behind the times“.

Did Mr. Obama’s Republican predecessor ever excoriate Democrats for voting against his legislative initiatives (or otherwise opposing hispolitices)? Recall how Democrats branded Bush a divisive figure. So, here’s my challenge to the Bush critics who regularly chime in in our comments section. You, like the unhappy Barney Frank, in his recent interview with Bill O’Reilly respond to every criticism of Obama with an attack on W. So, now you have a chance to show how right you (and he) are.  Show us what a horrible, no good and very bad that Republican was.

Show us that he was so horrible, no good and very bad that he was worse than his successor. Many Democrats voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (which passed the House in 2003 by a margin even closer than that of Waxman-Markey), even though it was quite similar to many initiatives proposed (and even enacted) by his predecessor Democrat Bill Clinton. California’s senior Senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein voted for this bill, yet many Democrats balked because it was Bush’s bill.

So, using your google skills, find references to Bush attacking congressional Democrats who voted against him on this bill as Obama attacked Republicans who voted against cap and trade. And if you’d like, you’re welcome to bring up other legislation of the Bush era. And recall, since I’m referencing comments that the current President made, so must you reference comments the then-President made. Comments made by elected Republican officials and conservative commentators do not count–as we’re talking about the President here, not the liberal commentariat or left-wing bloggers.

Did the Republican President describe his domestic adversaries fear-mongering?  Did he say they were sixteen years behind the times?

Comments

  1. Any critics care to wager that as this cap and trade bill is dissected, that it won’t turn out to be loaded up with payoffs and pork for Democrat contributors and special interest groups (just like the Spendulus?) Anyone? C’mon, any loyal Democrat willing to wager on the honesty and integrity of their party?

    Didn’t think so.

  2. K, the manchild in the WH was raised under Chicago thug rules, of course there will be payoffs.
    They’s jus takin’ care of bidness.
    Wanna bet he would have gotten money over his senate seat from Burris’ people?

  3. Hold on there, hoss! The Democrats are living up to their standards. It is the Republicans who out of sync. All this concern over etiquette while slopping at the public trough is like reading the Constitution and thinking it stands for something. Yak, yak, yak, yak, yakkety, yak, yak. yak. It only takes two words: I won.

  4. Oh, sorry, Dan. I just saw that you linked to the piece about the double standard Obama is applying the Democrats that voted against the cap and trade bill and Republicans who did the same. I put the link in a comment under the Waxman-Markey post.

  5. P.S. On that same point, it should be noted that Obama’s comments excusing the Democrats who voted against the bill focus specifically on the fact that the Reps have to run for re-election every two years and may have to face constituents who are connected to businesses that rely on coal for energy production. Obama’s not sympathetic because the Democrats who defected are concerned about the financial well-being of their constituents. He is only sympathetic to the fact that they might face tough re-election challenges if they voted for the bill. Pathetic. Disgusting. As usual.

  6. Sorry to hijack the thread, but this is just too absurd. Ahmadinejad is now calling Neda Soltani’s murder in the streets of Iran “suspicious” and alleging that “enemies of the nation” may be responsible:

    Ahmadinejad’s Web site said Soltan was slain by “unknown agents and in a suspicious” way, convincing him that “enemies of the nation” were responsible.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529391,00.html?test=latestnews

    This is the regime that Obama is going to talk out of developing nuclear weapons with diplomatic chit-chat. Yeah, right. Obama’s pandering to these psychotics is beneath contempt.

  7. Obama’s being partisan and hypercritical of the previous administration, despite having said he would be neither, however, the only people who care if he’s a liar and a hypocrite are conservatives. NOBODY ELSE CARES. Even if someone rises to your challenge, they would absolutely, positively, and entirely, miss your point.

    So how is this constructive? (Not that every post must serve a purpose.)

  9. As a fiscal conservative/social libertarian, I had my share of criticisms of the Bush administration. But at the end of the day, Bush knew that shifting blame did nothing to solve this country’s problems.

    Did you see Bush blame the Clinton administration for 9/11? Tell me, at what point does Obama get to stop blaming Bush for the mess he is making? Not really. Although that didn’t stop the media from claiming that he did…

    http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/30/bush-blames/

  11. is this a serious post? look at the transcript of just about any bush state of the union address. bush (and cheney and other repubs) constantly called into question the patriotism of those who did not support their ideology vis-a-vis iraq and the wider middle east.

  12. k at the transcript of just about any bush state of the union address.

    Absolutely. Why don’t you link to them and point out exactly where Bush attacks people in the same fashion, as was the challenge posed?

    The thought of you in litigation is hilarious. I’m sure the judges in your court cases are amused by your briefs in which not a word is capitalized, no facts are cited, and substantial arguments are set aside in favor of namecalling and spurious claims.

  13. look at the transcript of just about any bush state of the union address

    Hear, hear. boob, if it is so easy, then just do it. (I say you won’t find attacks of the kind that you’re desperately trying to suggest you would.)

  14. is this a serious post? look at the transcript of just about any bush state of the union address. bush (and cheney and other repubs) constantly called into question the patriotism of those who did not support their ideology vis-a-vis iraq and the wider middle east.

    Rather than reiterating vague liberal talking points, you might try providing actual examples. Cite specific instances. Provide context and explain why those instances made W. so much more divisive a President than Obama. Oh wait….

  16. gpw, i really have better things to do with my time…if you seriously believe bush and his allies never criticized democrats, you probably don’t deserve a pulpit from which to blog your opinions.

  19. gpw, i really have better things to do with my time…

    Translation: he cant provide any examples because they dont exist.

    if you seriously believe bush and his allies

    Boob, he was directly comparing your president to our president. Your attempt to weasel in “and his allies” is typical liberal dishonesty.

    you probably don’t deserve a pulpit from which to blog your opinions.

    Bush has more class and honesty in his little finger than Obama has in his whole body. And in typical Stalinist form, those who effectively illustrate it should not be allowed to speak

  21. so after about 3 minutes of googling, here is some evidence of the bush adminstration (both bush and cheney) suggesting that democrats were “emboldening the enemy” and, in cheney’s words, “trying to tear down all the good that has been accomplished, and his words are destructive to our effort in Iraq and in the global war on terror,” talking about john kerry. if you’d like more, please let me know.

  25. Sorry, bob, you quote only Cheney.. Read the post above. Since I was quoting Obama’s words, your must quote Bush’s. And you fail to do so, only providing links to left-wing blogs. To meet my challenge, you must provide actual quotations from George W. Bush while he was President–not interpretations from his critics.

    So far, you have failed.

    That could find links only on left-wing blogs suggests the reason for your problem. Heck, I quoted a left-wing newspaper.

  27. sorry, bob, that’s not my job. it’s yours. You provide the quotes.

    Not just that. Accusing a political opponent of “emboldening the enemy” in the heat of a political campaign, especially when that opponent made far worse accusations against you, is nothing compared to the insults Obama heaped on Republicans after a legislative battle.

    Please go back and read my post and pay attention to what I actually wrote. Think you can do that?

  28. so obama complaining about republicans spewing false information about global warming is worse than bush saying kerry is on the side of the terrorists? i need a bit more convincing on that one.

  29. Still waiting for you to post some of Bob’s examples. I am guessing I shouldn’t hold my breath. We could find an example of Bush saying that all Democrats were traitorous jihadists bent on America’s destruction (hell, he may well have) and you’d claim that this was far more mild than some relatively innocuous criticism Obama had. I guess in your mind, Obama can NEVER, god forbid, issue even the mildest critique of the GOP (and mild his critiques have been), no matter how uncompromising, how obstructionist, a party in the extreme minority is to his agenda.

    Here is a quote from Bush unambiguously attacking Democrats in far more hyper-partisan fashion than anything Obama has said as President. So will you abide by your promise and place it in the main body of the post?

    BUSH: The stakes in this war are high, and so are the stakes this November. Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror. Five years after 9-11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.

  31. This took me about 30 seconds to find on google by the way. I am not going to spend hours of my time reminding myself of the inarticulate jingoist rantings of our prior President — but I have little doubt that if I could find this in 30 seconds, I could find a heck of a lot more were I to spend an hour or two on your little project … every time Obama reaches a hand of friendship to the right, he just gets slapped away. You have every right to critique his agenda, and on things like climate change and health care, and only time will tell if his policies serve America better than Bush’s, but to act as if he is some hyperpartisan macho bully, when virtually all evidence is to the absolute contrary, undermines your credibility.

  32. um, Jeff, how can I post something that bob didn’t even include in the comments. Now, let me give you an assignment, go back and read the post, read the actual challenge.

    Here, I’ll make it easier–I was referring to rhetoric in dealing with his getting his agenda through Congress. From the post:

    So, using your google skills, find references to Bush attacking congressional Democrats who voted against him on this bill as Obama attacked Republicans who voted against cap and trade. And if you’d like, you’re welcome to bring up other legislation of the Bush era.

    You’re trying to compare Bush’s campaign rhetoric to Obama’s governing rhetoric — on a particular legislative vote (as per the post). You say “virtually all evidence is to the absolute contrary” (of Obama being hyperpartisan) when I’ve provided considerable evidence of Obama’s very partisan rhetoric.

    Please fellas, read the posts before responding.

    Thanks.

  33. Hilarious. boob has “better things to do with his time,” but then embarks on a feverish, scouring of every kilobyte of the DailyKos and HuffPost archives for something, anything to prove one of the most commonly repeated (read: false) liberal talking points. Careful, boob, don’t burn out your CPU unit trying to prove to us that you have better things to do with your time.

    But while boob is busy burnin’ up that hamster wheel of his, I wanted to point out the more significant point that this thread makes. Did anyone else notice that boob (often an obnoxiously prolific commenter in the recent past) didn’t show up until he saw an opportunity to bash Bush, who hasn’t been the President for over six months? Where is boob’s vigorous defense of the cap and trade bill? Why do I not recall boob telling us what a great idea it would be to have a public health plan “competing” with private insurance plans? I would think he would want to crow about the runaway success of the stimulus, what with unemployment only 2% higher than Obama said it would go just a couple of months ago. How about some comments defending that executive order the WH is drafting to detain the Guantanamo inmates indefinitely? What happened to all that praise for Obama’s “measured” and “pragmatic” response to the turmoil in Iran that insulated the US from being accused by the regime of “meddling” and causing the riots (for at least 48 hours)? I don’t understand. I would think at a minimum boob and his ilk would want to gloat a little bit about the courageous, unflinching leadership Obama has shown on gay rights issues. What happened to all of those guys?

  34. OK, so you want to parse it to that level? The point is that Bush’s rhetoric, IN GENERAL, is far more vitriolic and offensive than anything Obama has said. But let’s take a few examples from legislative context since you insist upon that. Again, found these very quickly:

    http://www.chinadaily.net/world/2007-11/17/content_6261800.htm

    In his weekly radio address, Bush said Congress was “failing to meet its responsibilities to our troops.”

    “For months, Congress has delayed action on supplemental war funding because some in Congress want to make a political statement about the war,” he said, criticizing Democrats for leaving for their Thanksgiving break without approving the war funds.

    I’d say that is a heck of a lot more vitriolic than saying a party is behind the times on climate change.

    Here are some more:

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-985403.html

    President Bush criticized the Senate Democrats’ initiative on school reform as “standing in the way” of progress yesterday as he lobbied business leaders on behalf of his own school innovation plan.

    “As the train pulls out of the station, many members of Congress have not yet climbed on board,” Bush told 300 U.S. Chamber of Commerce leaders at a conference devoted to school reform. “We need schools for the 21st century, not museums to the failed experiments of the past.”

    (this is strikingly similar to the quote you find so objectionable from Obama)

    Again, this is from a five minute search. It’s not exactly easy to go back to some random bill from 2002 and find what exactly the President said about it, and I’m not going ot spend hours doing it. But in a few quick minutes I’ve found plenty of similar attacks leveled by Bush against Democrats; logically speaking, if I bothered to spend a few hours, I’m sure I could find hundreds more. Are you now willing to drop your specious argument and move on to more important things?

  35. From GPW’s original post:

    …find references to Bush attacking congressional Democrats who voted against him on [the Prescription Drug bill] as Obama attacked Republicans who voted against cap and trade. And if you’d like, you’re welcome to bring up other legislation of the Bush era.

    So the challenge is: Find Bush attacking Congressional Democrats for voting against him on one of his Administration’s legislative initiatives. In response, Jeff brings up something off the mark, while strutting and preening about how easy it supposedly was – something that doesn’t address the challenge:

    Five years after 9-11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.

    No topic or cite, but the topic appears to be foreign policy. Jeff, I bet that *was* easy for you. Answering a challenge of your own invention, always is.

    Now, GPW’s challenge further stated:

    Show us that he was so horrible, no good and very bad that he was worse than his successor.

    Does Jeff’s quote rise to showing that Bush was *worse* than Obama has been? No. The quote isn’t any worse than the kind of thing Obama has been saying. Actually, if you ask me, it’s better than what Obama’s been saying, because Bush’s quote as given (1) at least possesses the virtue of truth, and (2) doesn’t try to question Democrats’ motivations; only their behavior.

  36. “As the train pulls out of the station, many members of Congress have not yet climbed on board,” Bush told 300 U.S. Chamber of Commerce leaders at a conference devoted to school reform. “We need schools for the 21st century, not museums to the failed experiments of the past.”

    (this is strikingly similar to the quote you find so objectionable from Obama)

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. Bush is literally saying that Democrats have not voted for his initiative. How devastating. I mean, who (other than a hypersensitive leftist) could find that offensive? Note that Bush *didn’t attack Democrats’ motivations*. For example, he didn’t accuse them of – oh, say – “fear-mongering”.

    “For months, Congress has delayed action on supplemental war funding because some in Congress want to make a political statement about the war,” he said, criticizing Democrats for leaving for their Thanksgiving break without approving the war funds.

    I’d say that is a heck of a lot more vitriolic than saying a party is behind the times on climate change.

    Again, you quote Bush making nothing but an observation of fact: that a Democratic Congress, in fact, delayed war funding… and that some in Congress did, in fact, have a particular political statement that they wished to make about the war. Whoopee, it’s so hurtful and offensive to merely provide a bland factual description of Democrats’ behavior to them.

  38. Here is basically your analysis: when Bush says something critical of Democrats, it’s OK because it is true, but when Obama says something critical of the GOP, that is bullshit because it is false. Yeah, real convincing. Ding ding ding, try again. I will grant you one thing: Obama is absolutely wrong that the GOP is 16 years behind the times on climate change. More like 50 years behind … so you’ve got me there.

    Listen, just give up. The original poster highlighted exactly two comments Obama made, one of which was the 16 years behind the times claim. That is virtually indistinguishable from the second Bush quote I found in five minutes, which YES, dealt with legislation, and NO, was not factual, but rather the exact same sort of claim that a Democrat-favored policy was behind the times (said in a nastier fashion that merely that, of course). there are EXACTLY the same comment, in EXACTLY the same context. QED. Challenge answered. Goodnight.

  39. And by the way, yes it was a different context, but your completely ridiculous, specious claim that it is worse to accuse a party of “fear mongering” on the environment than to call them the party of “cut and run” (and of course, you have it mixed up on which is true and which is false, but we’ll never agree on that so let’s just place that aside) shows just how unwilling you are to look at this issue rationally. I am not some reflexive defender of Obama. While I am confident he handled the Iran rhetoric as perfectly as it possibly could have been handled, I am unhappy with the latest Guantanamo moves (even though he has been boxed into a corner by cowardly Dems in congress there), there are aspects of the environmental package that are problematic, and I am most unhappy with his stance on gay marriage. So no, I don’t think he is perfect (worlds better than Bush of course, but so would virtually anyone). But really, this is just a silly ground to criticize him on, some really fairly innocuous comments that are not worth getting into a tizzy about. IF Obama at some point essentially accuses any who stand against his foreign policy of being traitors, THEN by my guest and moan and wail. Until that time, I suggest sticking to your stronger arguments. Don’t be one of the right wingers who is so incredibly tone deaf that they reflexively attack anything and everything that Obama says or does — all that does (like in this case) is lower your credibility for the attacks for when he actually DOES screw up, and make the GOP into even more of a laughingstock than it already has become of late.

  40. Here is basically your analysis: when Bush says something critical of Democrats, it’s OK because it is true, but when Obama says something critical of the GOP, that is bullshit because it is false.

    Well, that’s definitely true, and actually, its a much better point because its true. Republican criticisms of Obama and the Democrats are true, and the vast majority of Democrat criticisms of Bush and Republicans have been blatant lies.

    That is why, whether it has been the stimulus or cap and trade , it has always been the Republican position that has had more bipartisan support. Yet Obama uses the oh-so-tired line that Republicans are “fear mongers” yet he praises the 44 Democrats who voted with Republicans.

    Obama is a lying two-faced, sack-of-shit, Stalinist, rat-bastard, criminal thug who lies every time he moves his lips. If he is not lying, it’s only because he isnt speaking, and he is undoubtedly only refraining from speaking long enough to formulate his next lies.

    You see, GPW caught Obama bashing Republicans for doing exactly the same thing he was praising Democrats for. And you cant find any examples of Bush doing it because he didnt.

    I will grant you one thing: Obama is absolutely wrong that the GOP is 16 years behind the times on climate change. More like 50 years behind

    You are such an ignorant brain-washed lemming SUCKER:

    Liberals DISINVITE the world’s leading expert on polar bears from climate change conference, because he notes polar bear populations have INCREASED, not decreased, and notes that scientific evidence doesnt support man-made global warming.

  41. Are the liberals in here still debating the collapsing “consensus” that there is man made global warming? A lot of western countries are now backpeddling on climate change just about the time when our leftist congress and President are enacting horrific legislation to hobble our economy 50 years into the future. Nice job leftists. For 10 years the world has been cooling. Polar bear populations are exploding. Old growth owls are nesting in K Mart signs. But the lefitsts are taking us back to doing wash on the creek side rocks. And demanding we use only killer mercury filled flourescent bulbs. Nice job Obamaphiles. Most of my liberal friends are still driving SUVs and using Air Conditioning. Guess we aren’t in that much danger huh. Dummies, crooks, boobs,and morons.

  43. I notice that neither boob or his sockpuppet “Jeff” have dealt with this basic point.

    In a piece yesterday for Commentary’s Contentions, Jennifer Rubin notes that the Democratic President excuses Democrats for casting the same vote which earns opprobrium for Republicans. While the 44 Democrats who voted against Waxman-Markey (AKA Cap & Trade) did so because they were “sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue,” Republican who oppose the measure were “fear-mongering” and were “16 years behind the times“.

    Sort of like how boob and “Jeff” scream that anyone who opposes gay marriage and states that marriage is “sacred” is a homophobic bigot — except when they would have to apply that to their Obamamessiah.

    Once you realize this basic point — that Obama Party shills like boob and Jeff have no principles, just a willingness to say, do, and support anything for political reasons — their rhetoric becomes much more obvious. They cannot criticize Obama. They can only bash Bush and blame Bush for all of Obama’s lies.

  44. Don’t be one of the right wingers who is so incredibly tone deaf that they reflexively attack anything and everything that Obama says or does — all that does (like in this case) is lower your credibility for the attacks for when he actually DOES screw up

    LOL…..do you think we care about our “credibility” in the eyes of Obama puppets like yourself, who are incapable of criticizing or blaming Obama for anything that he does?

    When you call Obama a homophobic bigot for opposing gay marriage, when you call Obama a liar for claiming he would post bills online for five days prior to signing them, when you call him a hypocrite for hiring tax cheats and lobbyists after claiming he would do neither, and those sorts of things, THEN you might have some room to talk.

    But until then, puppet, you’re just doing the usual gay left coping mechanism; silence the critics rather than acknowledge that the criticism is correct.

  45. Dan, my friend, you doing a lot of special pleading in your post and response, basically arguing that any criticism on any matter that Bush ever ventured must be seen in the best possible light while any similar sounding remark by Obama must be regarded in the in the worst. That makes no sense.

  46. “the vast majority of Democrat criticisms of Bush and Republicans have been blatant lies.”

    Wow, you may have made the dumbest comment ever made on this blog. Well done. It really isn’t too difficult to find “true” ways to criticize a President who, in eight short years, took us from peace and prosperity to an utter and complete collapse of our economy, stock market, and housing market, ran up record deficits, eviscerated our international credibility, was in office for the largest terrorist attack in US history (and who ignored obvious signs that such attack was coming) then froze like a deer in the headlights after that attack occurred — and don’t blame Clinton unless you’d blame Bush if we end up being attacked by terrorists this September (yeah right), eroded civil liberties to an unprecedented degree with a scary big-government spying and torture program, diminished our military strength (and ability to use that strength without justifiable international skepticism) and ability to recruit to the military, undermined our credibility on matters of science or social policy by refusing to actually listen to, I don’t know, actual scientists, turned the DOJ into a total joke full of unqualified partisan hacks, handled natural disasters with total incompetence, led a disastrous and ill-advised war on false pretenses, oh yeah — demonized gay marriage and did zero to advance the cause of gay rights (I thought people on this blog cared about those issues? apparently not when it comes to GWB), all while absolutely butchering the English language in the process. All of these attacks are “true.” If the country is in worse shape in four years than the disaster Obama inherited, by all means, tear him to absolute shreds, you have every right, but more importantly, nominate a candidate who is half-way competent and can at least possibly do a better job (Romney would qualify there, Palin or her ilk, obviously not). But to expect Obama to turn around in four months the inarguable mess he inherited is a bit of a joke.

  47. And by the way, if you noticed above, I DID criticize Obama, and will continue to do so. If you look at, for example, the leading liberal blog, Talking Points Memo, it frequently criticizes Obama. Democrats, apparently unlike GWB’s apologists here, are perfectly willing to take our own to the woodshed. But when people on the right say utterly ridiculous things (aka, everything Michelle Bachmann has ever said, the hypocrisy of the almost-inevitably-themselves-immoral morality patrol, etc. etc.) we are going to call them out. That doesn’t mean we won’t also call out Obama if, for example, he extends the Bush policy of indefinite intention without probable cause to charge someone of a crime or any legal rights. That would really piss me off. The DOJ’s defense of DAMA really pissed me off as well. I’d like Obama to improve his record on gay issues to match the rhetoric. But for the love of God, he has an enormous agenda and an enormous clusterf*** to lead us out of, and he can’t hit every single controversial topic at once. At least give the man a year before you reflexively attack everything he has failed to do — he can’t do it all at once. No matter what, on the very least on gay issues, Obama’s record is already a heck of a lot better than his predecessor’s, and when he doesn’t have national and international disasters of epic proportions to clean up anymore, I’m sure he’ll devote more time to some of his slightly less urgent agenda items.

  48. thanks, jeff, for saying everything i was thinking. i did not have the energy yesterday to respond to this circus of radicals.

  49. #46: Wow. Over the last few years, I’ve probably seen every one of those delusional mantras and histrionic slogans slapped on the back of a VW bus or prius by itself, but to see ALL of the bumper stickers like that–stacked on top of each other, row upon row upon row, higher and higher into the heavens, one after the other and another and another…

    It’s like a gigantic, impenetrable monument to ignorance and stupidity. It’s breathtaking, really. I’d have to say what I like most about the exhibit is its symmetry–it’s perfectly balanced because for every criticism of Bush (i.e. failing to stop 9/11 BEFORE it happened) there are several other criticisms that cancel it out (i.e. opposition to and obstruction of every effort Bush made to prevent terror attacks AFTER 9/11). Also, I’ve gotta say I love the contrast between the Bush criticism, “ran up record deficits” with the demand that we “at least give Obama a year” to fix everything (by, FYI, running up a multi-trillion dollar deficit).

    Jeff, if you could just figure out a way for all of it to fit on the back of your car, now THAT would be something to see.

  50. Hey, everything I said is factually true — not my fault Bush was so historically incompetent that I can’t fit the (highly, highly redacted list, at that) into one pithy complaint.

    By the way, since I found a totally on-point example in answer to the EXACT question originally posed on this post (an instance where Bush described his opponents on a legislative initiative as behind the times) will the original poster honor his pledge to revise his post accordingly? Or does Bush have to use the exact same words as Obama — because obviously, his comment that I highlighted had exactly that meaning — for it to “count”? Still waiting ..

  52. Right on, Sean A. You can’t take silly people like boob and Jeff seriously when they scream about “Bush’s deficit”, given their slavish worship of Obama quadrupling it in size, or their whining about “demonizing gay marriage” when they fall all over themselves to endorse and support Obama’s opposition to it, or their screaming about “science” when there’s ample evidence that Obama suppressed an EPA study that came to the “wrong” conclusion about global warming, or a “politicized DOJ” when the Obama Party refuses to prosecute Black Panthers who were caught on tape harassing white voters.

    And the hilarity on it is that they don’t realize their hypocrisy. Obama has already endorsed extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping, insisted that he have an escape clause in his torture “ban” that says he can use whatever he likes, and is now preparing for indefinite detention. All of those Jeff screamed were impeachable offenses before, but now, Jeff makes excuses how they’re perfectly OK because Obama is “busy” and doesn’t have time to do things right. It makes it obvious how Jeff and other Obama gays are nothing more than unprincipled puppets who endorse and support anything that Obama does.

  53. By the way, since I found a totally on-point example in answer to the EXACT question originally posed on this post (an instance where Bush described his opponents on a legislative initiative as behind the times) will the original poster honor his pledge to revise his post accordingly?

    Actually, you didn’t answer the basic question:

    a piece yesterday for Commentary’s Contentions, Jennifer Rubin notes that the Democratic President excuses Democrats for casting the same vote which earns opprobrium for Republicans. While the 44 Democrats who voted against Waxman-Markey (AKA Cap & Trade) did so because they were “sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue,” Republican who oppose the measure were “fear-mongering” and were “16 years behind the times“.

    Now, puppet Jeff, explain why Obama Party members who vote against cap and trade are right, but Republicans who do are wrong. You bashed Bush for allegedly calling his opponents behind the times. Now bash Obama’s rhetoric as hateful and partisan, like you did Bush’s.

    What you don’t realize, Jeff, is that we have the number of Obama puppets like yourself. We know that anything referring to Bush will whip you into a frenzy – and then we simply point out how you syncophantically worship Barack Obama for doing exactly that which you criticized in Bush. Hypocrite gays like yourself aren’t used to having to think independently and we exploit that.

  54. bob, if we are such a circus of radicals, why do you spend so much time here?

    And aren’t you critics the least bit disappointed that the man who promised to be a new kind of politician transcending partisanship has been perhaps the most partisan president in recent history? You may claim he reaches out to Republicans, but he does not to listen to their ideas but to get them to support his liberal agenda.

  55. Thank you Jeff for regurgitating all those lies like the mindless, brainwashed lemming you are.

    Bush is responsible for the economic crisis caused that he tried over 25 times to prevent by reforming Fannie and Freddie? When he, and Republicans and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve were ALL warning that failure to reform them would lead to EXACTLY the crisis that resulted?

    How come no Democrats can name any policy of Bush’s that caused the crisis, while Republicans, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, The Financial Times, Barron’s, Investor’s Business Daily, The Wall Street Journal, ad naseum can ALL name the specific Democrat policies and actions that caused the financial crisis that we are now in?

    If Bush caused all this, and not Democrats (who have been in control of congress and thus the laws and purse strings for the two years preceeding the crisis) policies did not, then how come Democrat policies are making everything worse???

    You are drunk on delusion. There is no point responding to someone so utterly divorced from reality. Haldol and thorazine would probably be much more appropriate for you.

  56. Jeff, I have been pondering whether or not to include the quote you offered from then-President Bush, “We need schools for the 21st century, not museums to the failed experiments of the past,” in the body of my post because, at first blush, it meats the criteria I established.

    But, then I contrasted it to the incumbent’s recent statement. The incumbent called Republicans behind the times. President Bush faulted failing schools. Quite different rhetorical approaches.

    But, yeah, well, I grant that it is a close comparison, because, I mean, well, Bush did stay Democrats were standing in the way of progress, but then I remembered the criteria I set forth in the original post. I was referring to Obama’s immediate predecessor and, um, the article you linked in comment #34 is dated 1992. I wasn’t asking you to compare Obama to Bush (41) who was then President, but to Bush (43).

    As I’ve noted before, sometimes it is fun to shoot fish in barrels.

  57. oh, and, Jeff, one more thing, your comment, “The point is that Bush’s rhetoric, IN GENERAL, is far more vitriolic and offensive than anything Obama has said” simply cannot withstand scrutiny unless, of course, you use left-wing bloggers’ explanation’s of W’s rhetoric to show how vitriolic he was.

    Just one question–can you find a single example of then-President Bush, in his five months in office, talking about the problems he inherited–or even in the first five months after 9/11?

  58. Jeff, in #34 drops this bomb to start his comment:

    The point is that Bush’s rhetoric, IN GENERAL, is far more vitriolic and offensive than anything Obama has said.

    Unfortunately, having opened with his conclusion, poor Jeff goes on to show how utterly indefensible his thesis is. This sort of rhetorical overkill is not an argument, it is a laughable parting shot of the child running crying from the playgound because he kept getting pasted in the game of dodgeball. Reread the quote. What is there to say?

  59. yawn. Bush sucked, we all know that. Thankfully we made it through his reign of ineptness and illegality.

    It’s going to be a LONG, LONG decade for the repugnant republicans.

  60. yawn. Bush sucked, we all know that. Thankfully we made it through his reign of ineptness and illegality.

    I was no fan of Bush, but I’m hoping we also make it through the next 4-8 years.

    It’s going to be a LONG, LONG decade for the repugnant republicans.

    Unfortunately, the Democrats are doing their best to make the “LONG, LONG decade” as short as possible, starting with the 2010 election.

  61. Ohionut, in #60 projectile vomits this bile:

    yawn. Bush sucked, we all know that. Thankfully we made it through his reign of ineptness and illegality.

    (Please see comments at #59.)

  62. “So how is this constructive?”

    So, DoorHold, even granting your dubious claim that only conservatives care about this, since when is it good to remain silent? Silence is capitulation. But perhaps that’s what you want.