Gay Patriot Header Image

A reminder: Obama helped secure his victory in 2008 by running against George W. Bush’s big-spending policies

A number of conservative and libertarian bloggers have linked this video of then-candidate Barack Obama calling it “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for his predecessor to add $4 trillion to the national debt:

One of those bloggers, Ed Morrissey, quipped that the Democratic candidate “questioned Bush’s patriotism for the same policies that Obama accelerated as President himself“.  The 2010 CPAC blogger of the year reminds us that a phrase Obama used in the clip, “Credit card from the Bank of China”, was one of his favorites “during the campaign.  A quick search shows that he used it in an April 2008 debate, this June 2008 appearance, and others as well, usually tying it to tax cuts.”

This clip (which I daresay won’t be played that often on any of the major networks during the 2012 campaign) reminds us how the Democrat co-opted certain conservative constituencies in the 2008 campaign, casting himself as an opponent of the big-spending George W. Bush.  He helped pad his margin of victory with the votes of Republican-leaning independents who read such rhetoric as a commitment to cutting the budget.

He won’t be winning their votes back in the upcoming contest.

Share

19 Comments

  1. Obama’s talk about controlling deficit spending now is just talk; he has Porkulus & ObamaCare. Therefore, this is the equivalent of a arsonist trying to put out a fire. The 2010 elections forced Obama’s hand & we the people have stopped Obama’s Marxist agenda. He must be voted out in 2012 & his whole agenda–Porkulus, ObamaCare, Frank-Dodd, etc al–must be repealed.

    Obama has no credibility anymore. He’s a fool.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — August 26, 2011 @ 11:10 am - August 26, 2011

  2. Ed Morrissey, quipped that the Democratic candidate “questioned Bush’s patriotism for the same policies that Obama accelerated as President himself“.

    As I’ve been saying for a couple years. The continuity between the Big Government domestic policies of Bush and Obama has been remarkable, with Obama doubling-down on “the worst of Bush”: The spending, the hyper-regulation (adding Dodd-Frank on top of Bush’s Sarbox), the bailouts for the politically connected, the deficits and artificially low interest rates meant to push us all further into debt, etc.

    There is a precedent in the history books. Hoover, contrary to left-wing myth, was an activist President who tried to ‘solve’ the Recession of 1930 with Big Government measures like higher taxes, higher spending and deficits, and government economic planning. Roosevelt ran in 1932 as something of a fiscal conservative (but a cipher more than anything) – then took Hoover’s Big Government policies to new extremes. Sound familiar? “History rhymes.”

    Unfortunately, the result then was 10 years of Great Depression, followed by a World War that took 60 million lives.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 26, 2011 @ 11:31 am - August 26, 2011

  3. The RNC should run this clip as a 30-sec. political ad every hour on the hour on every TV and Cable station during the last 6-weeks leading up to the 2012 Presidential election.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — August 26, 2011 @ 11:32 am - August 26, 2011

  4. The best weapon to use against Obama is his own words; given his hyperbolic speeches & overexposure, he has plenty of material for Republicans to use for 2012.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — August 26, 2011 @ 11:43 am - August 26, 2011

  5. And the hilarity: turns out the Obamabot supporters like Warren Buffett who are screaming that they need to be taxed more in fact are arguing with the IRS to get their tax bills lowered.

    Buffett’s credibility is now completely shot. He is an outright hypocrite, period.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 26, 2011 @ 11:45 am - August 26, 2011

  6. Aaron Worthing at Patterico’s Pontifications:

    But then I thought to myself, what more perfect example could there possibly be about why many conservatives get paranoid about Obama? I mean since Obama has become president conservatives have often wondered: is he really this bad at his job, or is he some kind of evil genius trying to intentionally frak up this country?

    Now, consider this syllogism.

    1. An unpatriotic act is one that unjustifiably harms this country.

    2. Obama has declared that adding $4 Trillion to the debt was an unpatriotic act.

    3. As President, Obama has added $4 Trillion to the debt.

    4. Therefore Obama is knowingly, intentionally, and unjustifiably engaging in conduct that harms this country.

    Now, tell the truth liberals, is there anything at all unreasonable about that syllogism? No.

    But there is a reason why that syllogism fails, because there is a hidden premise in it. Let’s call it step 2.5 and insert it back into my syllogism:

    1. An unpatriotic act is one that unjustifiably harms this country.

    2. Obama has declared that adding $4 Trillion to the debt was an unpatriotic act.

    2.5 Obama actually means what he said.

    3. As President, Obama has added $4 Trillion to the debt.

    4. Therefore Obama is knowingly, intentionally, and unjustifiably engaging in conduct that harms this country.

    And as far as I can see, that is the only logical defense to the charge that the President is knowingly and willfully harming this country: that he is a cheeseball politician willing to say one thing to be elected and to do another once he actually has power.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 26, 2011 @ 12:07 pm - August 26, 2011

  7. #5 – And on top of that, ND30, Buffett is hosting a fundraiser for the Snob-in-Chief.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 26, 2011 @ 12:31 pm - August 26, 2011

  8. That’s a great argument you’ve re-posted there, Heliotrope. Of course with Obama, the incompetence vs. intent debate has raged since his first weeks in office, and despite the persuasiveness of that argument, I imagine it will continue to do so.

    I’m actually more concerned about the point made in Dan’s final sentence. While I would hope that “[Obama] won’t be winning their votes back in the upcoming contest,” I am by no means persuaded. Now maybe Sarah Palin has little chance of being nominated, but what if she is the nominee? I still know far too many people who identify as Republicans who hate Palin and would refuse to vote for her. People might find Obama to be an incompetent, manipulative liar, but that doesn’t mean that when it comes down to it, they won’t vote for him. After all, Harry Reid was re-elected here in Nevada, and while some of the Obama voting “centrists” and “moderates” I work with refused to vote for Reid, most of those still chose “none of these choices” over Sharron Angle.

    Comment by Kurt — August 26, 2011 @ 12:36 pm - August 26, 2011

  9. Remember those dipsh-t RINOs like Chris Buckley and David Brooks who were certain Obama would govern as a moderate?

    Comment by V the K — August 26, 2011 @ 12:50 pm - August 26, 2011

  10. Kurt,

    I am not, as of yet, a Palinista. What I do not understand, however, is how we are supposed to proceed by conceding the lying and hypocrisy ground to Obama on the basis of good sportsmanship, while getting our chops busted by lying and hypocrisy.

    Clearly there are two races for the presidency. The primary races solidify the base, hopefully. Therefore, John Huntsman comes our shifting and throwing marshmallows and telling the TEA Party to stand down and Rick Perry offends the country club folks with his brash talk and pistol packing ways. In the end, only one of the candidates gets the nomination and the party workers and coffers.

    The second campaign is against Obama for the office. It can be waged against what Obama has done or it can be “above all that” and be waged as an elixir for what ails us and promises, promises, promises.

    Of course, it can be a calculated combination of the two wherein we trust the candidate to nail the opposition when appropriate and to be above the fray when only a small point is in play.

    Which leads us back to whether we “trust” our own candidate to be principled and to take the principles to the campaign and remain principled throughout. McCain was an example of a loose cannon in the principles department. Romney hardly dare claim affinity with the Constitutionalists, let alone the TEA Party. Santorum is off and running as a religion freak in the eyes of the liberals and is DOA.

    Whether Palin or Bachmann is Sharron Angle is not at all clear to me. Perhaps Nevada had too much dirty Reid money in all the right places for any Republican to unseat him. Perhaps a really good Republican candidate was stopped short of the nomination. If so, I never heard or read of such a person.

    Right now, Bachmann is the only voice taking the TEA Party to the Republican establishment. Governors Walker, Christie, McDonnell and Perry are each doing wonderful work cutting spending, cutting deficits and preserving or working to establish a healthy business economy in their respective states.

    Meanwhile, Santorum, Romney, and Huntsman are running as DNA infused whiz kids with a magic touch. Herman Cain brings more authenticity to the race than any of those three strictly professional politicians.

    The TEA Party is not looking for business as usual professional politicians who will say what they must in order to advance their career and then settle down to business as usual like McCain, Bloomberg, Hatch, Lugar, Collins, Snowe, etc. in the sort of blue blazer and khakis and tasseled loafer style of comfortable elite comraderie.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 26, 2011 @ 1:08 pm - August 26, 2011

  11. This is the first time that Obama has to run on his own record…I can only hope the GOP knows how to make him answer to his own record but given their track record, I’m not sure. I think the time has come to throw them ALL out and start over.

    Comment by Mary — August 26, 2011 @ 1:22 pm - August 26, 2011

  12. I still know far too many people who identify as Republicans who hate Palin and would refuse to vote for her. People might find Obama to be an incompetent, manipulative liar, but that doesn’t mean that when it comes down to it, they won’t vote for him.

    Then throw it back at them: “So you hate Palin so much that you would throw the office back to Obama, who has proven himself to be an incompetent, manipulative liar, and let him do even more damage?”

    There seems in my mind to be a nearly perfect positive correlation between hating Palin and being one of those people who blamed conservatives for John McCain’s loss because conservatives wouldn’t just shut up and unify behind the nominee. In other words, it is not about Palin. It is about them being hypocrites and demanding of others what they won’t do themselves.

    Palin terrifies the vast majority of establishment Republicans for one simple reason — based on her record in Alaska, they know she has no qualms about calling them on the carpet for their behavior (as when she got the Alaska Republican Party chair tossed from the government board to which he was appointed) or going after sacrosanct political dynasties (i.e. the Murkowskis). Hence, they have, for the past two years, done two things: one, set back and allowed the Obama Party to do whatever they liked without a word, and two, tried to poison the well themselves by branding her supporters as kooks.

    If Palin wins office, Jeb Bush is not getting an ambassadorship or Cabinet position, Karl Rove won’t be sitting at the table for discussions, and Mitt Romney is unemployed for another eight years.

    They are not about to let that happen.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 26, 2011 @ 2:01 pm - August 26, 2011

  13. NDT: If pressed, I’m pretty sure that the RINO types who would refuse to vote for a Palin would offer up some excuse about how she’s crazy, stupid, inexperienced and dangerous, whereas they’d say something like Obama has just had “bad luck.” In other words, they’d offer up the lamestream media talking points against Palin and in defense of Obama because that’s where they still get most of their news and information. Never mind, of course, that they wouldn’t be able to provide evidence for their claims against Palin; nor would they be able to defend Obama’s record. The sad truth is that the past four years have made it abundantly clear to me that most people just don’t want to know any information that will rupture the comfortable bubbles of their own beliefs.

    Comment by Kurt — August 26, 2011 @ 2:46 pm - August 26, 2011

  14. Interesting the thread here; I meant to point out something about the 2008 campaign–that Obama was able to co-opt conservative-leaning voters with his rhetoric attacking W for racking up huge deficits. And how he won’t be able to win those voters back.

    Implied was that he never won a mandate to ratchet up spending as he did. . .

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 26, 2011 @ 3:02 pm - August 26, 2011

  15. The Dear Reader had a whole bag o’ tricks in 2008, that He can’t use anymore. He better have some new ones.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 26, 2011 @ 4:40 pm - August 26, 2011

  16. It never ceases to amaze me how hypocritical liberals are and how short their memory is on the subject. Think the MSM will question him on this? Not a chance.

    Take away liberals’ high-end guitar materials, however, and they squeal. This video will never make it onto Chris Matthews’ campaign coverage (it might kill the thrill), but the Gibson factory raid will be enough to get everyone’s attention!

    Comment by Mel Maguire — August 26, 2011 @ 9:01 pm - August 26, 2011

  17. Re 12. Thank you NDT for your comments. It was worth reading a second time.

    Comment by John R — August 26, 2011 @ 10:52 pm - August 26, 2011

  18. Re 12. Thank you NDT for your comments. It was worth reading a second time.

    Comment by John R — August 26, 2011 @ 10:52 pm - August 26, 2011

  19. Anybody besides me notice that the smears they’re lobbing against Palin sound an awful lot like what the “establishment” said about Reagan? As I recall he won IN A LANDSLIDE, and was re-elected the same way. What a bunch of tools.

    Comment by bastiat fan — August 27, 2011 @ 1:31 pm - August 27, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.