GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/04/12/more-seasoned-now-obama-is-still-running-against-the-w/trackback/

  1. This “highly partisan speech” was an official speech

    Given that this is the Washington Times (surely the only American newspaper more ridiculous than the New York Times given that the Washington Times has never generated a profit) saying that, I consider it a good sign that they’re attacking Obama for the speech. It must have been good if the Washington Times are being so derisive about it.

    Well, that broken-down theory did lead to a economic boom that begin in the early 1980s and lasted until the fourth quarter of the last decade.

    Selective reporting much?

    “My supposedly terrible driving skills did lead to an extremely fast journey from home to nearly three-quarters of the way to our destination!”

    Yeah, then what?

    This guy is faulting someone for slow job growth?!?!?

    As you accidentally pointed out, he may have a point. Bush’s job growth figures were mediocre at best, and ended on a massive crash.

    Comment by Serenity — April 12, 2012 @ 4:52 am - April 12, 2012

  2. This current run of speeches by Obama are clearly directed at the politically stupid.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 12, 2012 @ 7:40 am - April 12, 2012

  3. @#3 – Richard, you are correct. Look no further than the execrable POS at #1 for exidence of of your assertion.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 12, 2012 @ 8:08 am - April 12, 2012

  4. Yes, but Serenity, as we have repeatedly reminded our readers, the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006–thus sharing power with W until the run-up of the market meltdown.

    And as to making it three-quarters of the way, well, bear in mind that Reagan had long since left office when the economy experienced its first major meltdown since his policies kicked on–after nearly twenty years of politicians (on both sides of the aisle) whittling away at his efforts to whittle down the size of government.

    The primary reason the boom continued into the 1990s was that the election of the Republican Congress in 1994 prevented Clinton from undoing many of the Gipper’s accomplishments.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 12, 2012 @ 10:03 am - April 12, 2012

  5. [...] Older now, but Obama is still running against the W [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Why 2012 won’t be a repeat of 1964 — April 12, 2012 @ 12:18 pm - April 12, 2012

  6. Serenity – I don’t know if it was the case in Florida, but the President has apparently been giving the exact same speech at campaign events and non-campaign events. Carney tried to spin it as a matter of consistency – the President doesn’t have different messages to deliver to different people – but if you’re honest with yourself I hope you’d admit that the speech any presidential candidate is giving at campaign fundraisers is likely to be “highly partisan.” If he really is giving the exact same speech at campaign events and at gatherings that are official White House business… to paraphrase Sigourney Weaver in Avatar, it would be nice if the guy at least had the courtesy to tell us it was raining.

    As for this… “Now, thousands of medical research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS would be eliminated.” Real researchers, people who have to actually produce results, are finding that bug chunks of academic research can’t be replicated and are therefore useless in the search for treatments for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS (http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2012/03/29/new-study-claims-nearly-90-percent-of-cancer-research-is-wrong/).

    I haven’t heard a specific proposal from Republicans to cut government funding for medical research, but if it’s really the case that grant recipients (as opposed to researchers funded by venture capital) are cherry-picking results in order to improve their odds of continuing to receive grants, I can’t see how maintaining or increasing their funding levels is the absolute, inarguable good that President Obama makes it out to be. Also, keep in mind that government grant recipients in academia are the driving force behind the idea that computer models are a better indication of what’s going on with the climate than actual real world climate data. Instead of running from this accusation that the GOP wants to gut government research grants, it would be nice if conservatives could use it as a jumping off point for a frank discussion about the merits of funding research that exists for no apparent reason beyond securing further funding.

    Comment by AndyN — April 12, 2012 @ 4:56 pm - April 12, 2012

  7. Yes, but Serenity, as we have repeatedly reminded our readers, the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006–thus sharing power with W until the run-up of the market meltdown.

    So the less that one year of Democrat-controlled congress (as it was at the time) gets the blame for a recession that was clearly rooted in events happening over the course of a decade or longer?

    Seriously, can you find any economists willing to assign any serious amount of blame to a congress that hadn’t even been in office one year when the recession started to happen? Both recessions and recoveries are events that happen over years, not months.

    And as to making it three-quarters of the way, well, bear in mind that Reagan had long since left office when the economy experienced its first major meltdown since his policies kicked on–after nearly twenty years of politicians (on both sides of the aisle) whittling away at his efforts to whittle down the size of government.

    You mean by the Republican congress of 1995-2007? According to your next paragraph, they were the ones stopping Clinton from undoing ‘the Gipper’s accomplishments’. Which were what exactly? Clearly not a smaller government, since you claim that were being steadily whittled away. So what did he do then?

    Also, what about Bush? Republican president and congress, for several years. Yet the government is still getting bigger? This brings me back to the point I’ve raised a few times, if the Republicans were such traitors to the cause of smaller government back then, what faith do you have the Romney et al. won’t just pull the exact same trick? It worked back then, what’s changed?

    The primary reason the boom continued into the 1990s was that the election of the Republican Congress in 1994 prevented Clinton from undoing many of the Gipper’s accomplishments.

    Well as is clear from the record, the boom did not continue into the 90s, the United States hit a recession almost as soon as the 90s started. That’s the big reason George H. W. Bush lost his bid at re-election. Unemployment hit 7.5% in 1992 and was followed by a now-familiar ‘jobless recovery’.

    Incidentally, unemployment then fell to 6.9% in 1993, 6.1% in 1994, 5.6% in 1995, 5.4% in 1996, and 4.9% in 1997. If there’s any sign of a faster fall starting in 1995 (when the new Republican congress took office) there’s no sign of it in the figures. Also, 1989, the year Reagan left office? 5.3%. Obviously a fantastic figure, especially compared to the 4.7% when Clinton left office in 2001.

    Comment by Serenity — April 12, 2012 @ 6:13 pm - April 12, 2012

  8. Seriously, can you find any economists willing to assign any serious amount of blame to a congress that hadn’t even been in office one year when the recession started to happen?

    Yup. You and your fellow Obama Party members like Paul Krugman who are screaming that the reason your Obama is such a miserable failure is the 2010 Republican takeover of the House.

    And that illustrates why we’re laughing so hard. You are sitting here having a screaming temper tantrum and fit over Bush’s “awful” jobs growth and unemployment numbers when they blow Obama’s away on every level.

    You aren’t a serious or intelligent person, Pomposity. You’re a talking points parrot that will shriek 12% unemployment is “economic recovery” and that 4% unemployment is a “depression” if your Obama Party tells you to do it. You use numbers like a drunk uses a lamppost — purely for support and not for illumination.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2012 @ 9:37 pm - April 12, 2012

  9. #6 – “Instead of running from this accusation that the GOP wants to gut government research grants, it would be nice if conservatives could use it as a jumping off point for a frank discussion about the merits of funding research that exists for no apparent reason beyond securing further funding.”

    Excellent points, AndyN.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 12, 2012 @ 9:58 pm - April 12, 2012

  10. I keep hearing that Obama “loves campaigning.” Is that true? Or does he just love bashing Republicans, free markets, and the concept of limited Government.

    Comment by V the K — April 13, 2012 @ 6:24 am - April 13, 2012

  11. The Democrats and the DNC will be campaigning against George Bush-43 for the next 50-years, just as they have against Herbert Hoover for the last-80 years. It’s easier than having practical solutions that work in the real-world…not just sound profound inside the Beltway.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 13, 2012 @ 8:40 am - April 13, 2012

  12. Incidentally, unemployment then fell to 6.9% in 1993, 6.1% in 1994, 5.6% in 1995, 5.4% in 1996, and 4.9% in 1997. If there’s any sign of a faster fall starting in 1995 (when the new Republican congress took office) there’s no sign of it in the figures. Also, 1989, the year Reagan left office? 5.3%. Obviously a fantastic figure, especially compared to the 4.7% when Clinton left office in 2001.

    There is no better example of the “weeds” that liberals want to lure you into.

    Just imagine all the cause and effect that can be nuanced, implied, stated, promoted and trumpeted. Just imagine all the blame that can be affixed. Just imagine the “plain obvious” solutions that were ignored. Just imagine all the fudging, reweaving, diversion, fact invention and disputing and name-calling that can ensue.

    All you need to do is jump into the weeds and Pomposity will flail away.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 13, 2012 @ 10:50 am - April 13, 2012

  13. President Obama is running an unreal campaign since he’s pretending his term has not existed; he’s trying to run as the outsider & against Washington DC. Therefore, trying to run against President George W. Bush is par for the course for this buffoon.

    Obama is desperate. He has nothing to run on.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — April 13, 2012 @ 1:41 pm - April 13, 2012

  14. I don’t think Obama loves campaigning either. He loves the adulation with the heavily filtered union audience. Obama cannot live in the real world; he would shatter.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — April 13, 2012 @ 1:43 pm - April 13, 2012

  15. [...] In office three years now, but still running against George W. [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama campaign spokesman makes Romney’s point — April 25, 2012 @ 6:42 pm - April 25, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.157 Powered by Wordpress