Alright, a couple points then we can all get on with our days. First up, Jimmy Carville is “worried” about Obama. Second up, we have some polls showing why Jimmy is right to worry. Finally, we have a reminder why we should be done with the Bush family once and for all. Let’s do this.
● Jimmy Carville: James Carville is a partisan hack, so when he tells you that Obama is eeah, doin’ sumtin wrongg, you better believe Obama’s doing something wrong. And in this case, Jimmy C is upset that Obama is telling everyone the economy is great. Said Jimmy C on Good Morning America:
“I’m worried that when the White House or the campaign talks about the progress that’s being made, people take that as a signal that they think that things are fine and people don’t feel they ought to believe that.”
In other words, by telling people everything is fine when the public clearly knows better, Obama is squandering what little trust he has left and is telling voters that he “doesn’t get it” and has no plans to address their concerns.
As proof that Carville is right, think back to last week when Obama said at a press conference that “the private sector is doing fine.” Really? Perhaps he forgot that four million private sector jobs have vanished under his Reign of Error? The Republicans (led by Romney) pounced on this so strongly that Obama had to “clarify” his comments a few hours later by telling reporters, “it is absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine.” Nice, complete reversal “clarification.”
Carville once famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Perhaps he was talking directly to Obama?
● Polls: I’ve said before that this election really comes down to Florida and Ohio. In Ohio, Romney leads Obama 46% to 44%. In Florida, Romney leads Obama 46% to 45%. With undecideds typically breaking for the incumbent, this tells us Obama will lose. Iowa, which I see as irrelevant, is also trending Romney over Obama 47% to 46%. And if that isn’t enough, get this. . .
Colorado, an Obama state, is tied 45% each. Michigan, a clear Obama state, has Romney leading 46% to 45%. Wisconsin, another Obama state, has Romney leading 47% to 45%. That’s 36 electoral votes slipping through his fingers. Winning will be virtually impossible for Obama if that happen.
● RINO-dynasty: It is time America was finished with the Bush clan. Two disastrous Presidents who did their best to tar conservatism is enough. Sadly, there’s one more out there and he’s no better. This week old Jeb reminded us again why we want no part of him. What did he do this time? Get this. . . despite the election coming up, he decided now would be a good time to call us all a bunch of extremists. Specifically, he said this:
“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground.”
In other words, Reagan and Bush Sr. couldn’t have been nominated if they ran today because the party is now too extreme to accept them.
First of all, this is false. This is the same party which just nominated Mitt Romney, who was viewed by conservatives as a RINO and whose record as a governor is clearly moderate. This is also the same party which has made RINOs like Chris Christie and, regrettably, Jeb himself into stars. Secondly, saying this now is disloyal as now is the time to rally around the nominee to defeat Obama. Finally, it’s ultra-disloyal to say this particularly because this has been a Democratic talking point for years now, and only true RINOs adopt Democratic talking points and lend them credibility.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I will never vote for another Bush.
OT: I was planning to do a book giveaway promo later in the year, but for various reasons beyond my control, it's moved. So next Tuesday, Without A Hitch will be FREE on Kindle. Please pick it up if you haven't and read it and then leave a review! :)
Also, if you have already read it or Wrongful Death, please do me a favor and try to leave a review before Tuesday. People judge books by the number of reviews these days so it would help me a lot if you all posted one (and no, they don't need to be 5s... be honest). Thanks! Here's the LINK
Thursday, June 14, 2012
You're Doing It Wrong!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
72 comments:
Carville, despite being an ass, is exactly correct. Dick Morris has had similar insites into the fact undecideds almost always break against the incumbant when election day rolls around (those that never got around to deciding until the election) He has interesting studies to back this up so it really does spell trouble for Obama.
I have no interest in Jeb Bush and didn't follow that story. However, based on an exact reading of the statement, I don't see that as quite the indictment you say. Maybe it was meant that way. I have no problem trying to find some issues with moderate blue dogs. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are equally inflexible, and when it comes to getting the deficit under control, the discussion needs to be do we negotiate only a 30% cut this year instead of 35%. It can't be along the lines of "we will talk about cutting back the percent of entitlement spending growth in the future if you agree to tax increases now.
I'll make sure to get something in before Tuesday. It's been a little while since I read it, but I think I can still do a fair job :)
James Carville as a political genius always mystifies me, he was able to get Slick Willie in at a plurality thanks to Perot. As far as his commentary, look for Barry today in Ohio to incorporate some of his and Stan Greenberg’s (Democracy Corps.) advice and try to become centrist. Barry will be unable, he’s a hard left ideologue, who cannot link up with reality.
Polls are a blurred snapshot, generated by the press, to create a horserace, to enhance ratings, to paraphrase the immortal words of Bob Dylan, “we don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” This country is in awful shape, open your eyes and look.
Jesse Jackson the slogan master told us, “stay out the Bushes,” this is one time I will listen.
In a right and just world, James "It's-the-Economy,-Stupid" Carville would lose all credibility for doing anything short of completely tossing Obama under the bus over the economy. (Bonus points if he also drives the bus.) But instead, I expect him to keep making quibbling statements about Obamanomics and to maintain his reputation as the last word in Democrat political strategy. Pthzzz!
TJ, RE: Jeb Bush - I totally see what you are seeing in his comment. He's couching that opinion in an "if" statement and not naming any names so that, theoretically, he can't be nailed down as dissing the Tea Party.
That doesn't change the fact that he is dancing on the edge, knowing that liberals and Democrats will run with such a statement as evidence that the Republicans are a fringe party. Would it have been so hard to come out directly and say that the GOP is the same party today as it was in 1980?
(Also, the equivocation between Reagan and his father is a little more than I can stomach.)
To be more exact, Mr. Carville: No, it's not reporting progress in the economy that turns people off to Obama, it's him getting up there and saying the private sector is "doing fine" and the only problem with the economy is the public sector isn't big enough. That's your problem right there.
Carville most always gives me the icks, but he's right on the mark with this one and the weird thing is I think he's being disregarded by his peers for having the gall to tell the truth. So instead of them thinking he might be on to something, they'll treat him like they treat the right, with contempt and hate.
Think he'll have a moment of clarity and defect?!
ssshhhh, T-Rav! Don't tell him the secrets of the GOP November success!
OH, wait, they'll still have TOTUS as their nominee, so - whatever... I'm beginning to be truly hopeful (although not as sure as Andrew) about the outcome of this election.
The Bushes drive me crazy. We keep being told "don't worry, this is ins't a RINO like his father" but it's never true.
rla, I think it's a situation where Obama can't win big (at least, nowhere near as big as in '08), but could still win; while Romney not only has a chance, he could turn it into a blowout. IN and NC will definitely flip back to the R column, FL probably will, and while I'm not optimistic about OH or PA (or VA), I think we've got a real chance at IA, WI, MI, CO and maybe NV. And now I've got to go make sure I got all these state abbreviations right.
Jed, Thanks!
Carville has proven to be astute over the years, though he often misses the mark because of his hyper-partisanship. In this case, I think he's right. And I think Obama is blind to the way he's perceived.
On Bush, this is just one of many statements and action by Bush. He's on the wrong side on most issues and is always quick to condemn any attempt by Republicans to take political advantage over anything. He's a "can't we all just get along" Democrat-lite Republican.
Stan, I've never bought the idea that Carville is a genius either, but he is solid at recognizing the obvious -- something which often eludes Washington types. And I think this time he's really put his finger on a problem for Obama.
It will be interesting to see if Obama tries to paint himself as a centrist because he's failed/refused to do that for so long now I wonder if he doesn't understand where the center is anymore?
Yeah, polls are unreliable, but trends are useful, and the trend here is that Obama has been below 50% for years and Romney has momentum, both of which make sense when you look at the state the country is in and how people are reacting to the candidates.
tryanmax, Bonus points if he's driving the bus! LOL! I think you are right that while Carville can be astute, he's also a partisan hack and he will always go back to defending the Democrats in the end. And even when he does say something positive, he still couches it in an attack on conservatives in some manner.
I agree entirely with you about Bush. First, there is no comparison between Reagan and Bush Sr. Bush Sr. was a failed president who got tossed on his butt for abandoning Reagan's legacy. He was a country clubber and a government lifer with no principles. He was the anti-Reagan.
Secondly, I almost wrote about the annoying way he said this. This is like rumor mongering... "well, I don't believe this, but everyone else says it's true." That's meant to be taken as true and it's a cowardly manner of saying. Also, he's smart enough to know that this is a Democratic talking point and that it will be picked up by the MSM as further proof that the Republican Party is now an extremist Tea Party party. I see this as yet another smear, and it joins a long line of smears from the Bush family at conservatives.
T-Rav, Yeah, that's the fundamental problem isn't it? Economic-idiocy. But you can't teach an old socialist reality.
Patti, There is always a high "ick" factor with Carville. He makes my skin crawl every time I see him or hear him.
I think you're right that he's being disregarded on this. The Democrats don't seem to be in any mood to listen to the truth no matter who is telling it to them.
I can't see him defecting, but it would be hilarious.
rlaWTX, I'm actually much more sure than I've let on. I think all the signs point to a Romney victory and they've done so consistently for over a year now. To me, the only question now is how large of a victory. Indeed, when I look at every factor which I've known to influence elections, from economic statistics to just listening to how many people speak their minds in line at the grocery store, I see nothing but bad news for Obama.
Doc, That's been the line all along. Don't worry about Bush Sr. rhetoric, he's solid like Reagan. Don't worry about Jr., he's not a RINO like his old man. Don't worry about Jeb, he's not a RINO like his brother and his old man.
I'm done with them.
If Obama = centrist.
then MSM = truthful.
Haven't been a Bush fan since the "voodoo economics" days. When your "Tory" candidates are nearly as left as the mainstream of your opponents, your country is on the rocket train to left looney land. Also known as "Britain".
I take the Bush phenomena as the Republicans gobbling from the democratic apple of vote buying
Now tell me again why Mitt Romney isn't the next Bush?
T-Rav, Technically, you are probably right that Obama could win small as a best case for him, and get blown out as a worst case for him, but I see no evidence a best case is coming.
Everything points to disaster for him, from economic statistics to his depressed support to the polls, etc. Moreover, he doesn't seem to have a clue how to turn this around. Nor does he seem willing to do what it would take to turn it around. Instead, he thinks he's going to win by calling Romney an extremist and promising more of the same to his supporters.
K, Nice equation!
The voodoo economics thing bothered me and then the "kindler gentler" garbage bothered me. Then you had the tax hikes and the constant surrenders to the Democrats. Then you get Bush Jr. and his compassionate conservatism which turned out to be crony socialism hiding behind the mantle of conservatism. And Jeb hasn't been that much better. He's certainly got a penchant for throwing conservatives under the bus every couple months.
We'll have to wait and see on Romney, but he's staked out genuinely conservative positions on most (or all issues) at this point, his instincts (as compared to talking points) in the debates appear to be tenth-amendment conservatism, and I think he grasps that the public wants a clean break from big government conservatism. But we won't know until he's in office.
Andrew, That's the same like I kept hearing from their supporters and I don't believe it. It's the old "fool me once" thing.
Also, interestingly, I see from a headline on the left that the AFL-CIO is cutting their funding to the Democrats and Obama. Talk about bad timing for the Democrats!
Andrew: I just saw Ed Koch ripping up Obamanomics. Carville isn't much help. The more Obama tries to shore up his leftist base, the more he alienates those Democrats who actually do understand how bad the economy is and how much Obama has contributed to the mess.
I'm with you on the Bushes--particularly Jeb. He did some good things as governor, but he simply doesn't understand that his "big tent" views are actually just a disguise for turning conservative views into a mush that gets stirred into the RINO pot.
I see from Rasmussen that the Republicans now have a 16-point lead in the WI Senate race after last week's failed recall. I wouldn't be surprised now if we pick up seven or eight seats in the Senate.
T-Rav, Are you talking the US Senate or Wisconsin Senate?
Doc, It is the fool me once thing. How many times can you elect a moderate with a penchant for attacking conservatives from a family of moderates with a penchant for attacking conservatives under the line "he's not like the others"? At some point, this needs to be seen as stupidity.
Doc, I haven't read the article, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was a bit of payback or if they just decided that the spending money on a lost cause was pointless. They'll be back, but maybe not for this election, and that would be disastrous for the Democrats.
Lawhawk, I'm seeing more and more "moderate" Democrats turning against Obama and his economic mess. What interests me about this is the future. Will they finally realize that the Democratic Party has moved far to the left of them and come join us (or splinter off) or will they just keep going?
I agree about Bush. From what I understand, he did a decent job as governor and did some good things. BUT he also plays right into the hands of the Democrats time and again on the national stage, he's big on giving aid and comfort to the likes of Pelosi, and the policy positions he takes are far too much like his brother's or his father's for me. It's time to move on from the Bush clan.
Fool me once, shame on —— shame on you. Fool me —— You can't get fooled again.
Thanks George. Nuclar. Nuclar.
It's all Jeb Bush's fault! He ruined the country as governor of our 54th state.
I've got no use for Obama or Bush. How do we keep electing such fools? Perhaps Democracy really doesn't work. Maybe we should just draw straws.
K, To go back to an oldie but a goldie:
If Obama = centrist
then MSM = truthful
and then Monkey = fly out of my butt.
1. Carville has had it out for Obama since Obama screwed Louisiana (and all the other Gulf States) during the BP oil disaster. This may be some bit of payback.
2. Jeb can say all he wants. There will never be another Bush in the WH. Right or wrong, the "Bush brand" is tainted. And I have a much better opinion of the Bushes than obviously most of you here.
Lawhawk,
I came across an older Huffington Post article (2011) which ripped Obama from the left.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-koch/if-there-ever-was-a-momen_b_915169.html
------
I was really disappointed when the president never challenged the fact that so-called "unearned income," is taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent. Most of us have "earned income," unlike the Masters of the Universe, who brought this country to its economic knees, destroying the retirement plans of millions of Americans whose 401(k) savings and stock holdings were nearly halved in the Great Recession, and whose homes lost huge values. And most disappointing for me that these jackals who were responsible for beggaring America have not been held criminally accountable. Instead, many have gotten richer.
------------
I suspect Obama's big problem is with liberals, not moderates. Everybody (including liberals) is unhappy with the economy but there are liberals out there who are unhappy with Obama because he didn't end all wars, close Guantamano and throw Wall Street in jail.
Barack, You of all people should not be pointing fingers at anyone else.
Ed, There are times I think drawing straws would be a better solution. Maybe the real answer would be to disqualify people who've worked for government?
Ed, LOL! That brings back memories. I'm just glad "NOT" didn't survive.
Bev, It wouldn't surprise me if this was Carville's version of payback, or at least indifference to helping the Obama cause.
I'm not so sure the Republicans won't run Jeb Bush. If he'd jumped into the race this time, I think he would be the nominee and I would be booking a boat to Singapore.
Anthony, Here is your link: LINK.
I think Obama has a problem with both liberals and moderates. The moderates don't like him because he ended up not being a hopeful president, but instead became a partisan president -- as Peggy Noonan called him, "creepy."
The liberals are outraged because he's never really fought for their agendas -- he handed that off to Congress, he never did many of the things he could have when he had the power, his policies failed (and they would rather blame him than the policies), and because they see him as the guy who blew up their forever-majority and gave birth to the Tea Party. So while I don't think they would vote against him, the real danger is that a chunk of them (2-5%) simply won't vote, and that will make a huge difference.
Now he has the impossible task of trying to excite his base while winning over moderates.
Bev and Anthony, Speaking of Koch and Carville, I should also add that there seems to be a low-grade pro-Hillary insurgency going on within their party right now, with all the Hillary people taking shots at Obama for various issues and dropping hints that things would have been better under her. It's like they're laying the groundwork for the civil war to come.
Andrew, That's an interesting idea about a low-grade Hillary insurgency. I'll need to watch for more evidence of it.
Also, I read your books and love both. Well done!
Oops. Andrew, I meant the US Senate race.
Also, I hadn't thought about Carville and the whole Louisiana connection. I bet there's some of that going on, plus a whole lot of the old Clinton-Obama antagonism.
Andrew - Let me clarify. The Republicans may RUN Jeb Bush, but the Dems will crucify him. So, as I said, there will never be another Bush in the WH in our lifetime. Even Barbara Bush made that one clear. And there doesn't seem to be a next generation of Bushes who are interested in the family business either.
Also another clarification - It was not just Obama who gave rise to the Tea Party movement. Both parties had a hand in it. The movement just publicly erupted like Mt. St. Helens during Obama's stimulus push.
Terry, It's an interesting idea. I guess we'll have to watch and see if more evidence of it arises between now and the election.
Thanks on the books!
T-Rav, It would be interesting to win the Senate seat. I won't hold my breath because I still see Wisconsin as a blue state, but the mere fact it could happen is exciting.
Yeah, I'm wondering how much this about the Clinton-Obama feud?
Bev, Point taken. The Republicans may nominate Jeb, but I don't think the public will vote for him.
And you are correct that the Tea Party arose because of both parties. BUT, in this instance, we're talking about how liberals see Obama. And in that regard, they see the Tea Party and the Republicans as the same evil thing. So what they are upset at Obama for would be his failure to lead between 2008-2010, which led to a whole series of events, including the rise of the Tea Party and the failure to get a single-payer healthcare system, which led to the landslide of 2010, which ended their 2008 dream that they were the new majority party in America. That's really what I meant.
I don't see how the two Bush presidencies were "disastrous".
Carter, possibly. Obama, possibly.
Buchanan . . . pretty much the definition of "disastrous". (Buchanan=Worst President in US History)
Mediocre is probably better. I would grade them a B. B- at lowest.
Bush Sr.: (1) Did his best to discredit Reaganomics including coining the phases "kinder gentler" and "voodoo economics." (2) Started war in Middle East and then stopped short of victory resulting in decades long involvement by US troops and spawning of Al Qeada. (3) Pushed idea of "New World Order" with the US acting through international organizations. (4) Pimped and passed the Americans With Disabilities Act. (5) Signed the Clean Air Act which gave the EPA the powers conservatives hate today. (6) Immigration Act of 1990, increasing immigration by 40%. (7) Signed "assault weapon ban". (8) Appointed liberal David Souter to Supreme Court. (9) S&L Bailout. (10) His failures led to losing re-election and Clinton coming to power and almost passing HillaryCare.
Bush Junior: (1) Essentially destroyed conservatism as a respectable philosophy. If Obama hadn't come along and mucked things up, the Democrats would be the new majority. Never once defended conservatism. (2) Smeared conservatism with phrase "compassionate conservatism." (3) Created new entitlement for prescription drugs. (4) TARP. (5) Wall Street bailout. (6) Massive debts. (7) Intense cronyism. (8) Failed in Afghanistan because he decided to go into nation building. (9) Turned the world against the US through the invasion of Iraq and then lost the peace by not committing enough troops. (10) No Child Left Unfunded Act. (11) Tried to appoint crony Harriet Meyers to Supreme Court. (12) Policies cost Republicans House and Senate.
Both put the economy in recession, both ended up bailing out rich bankers, both mucked up militarily, both attacked conservatism, both were so disliked the resulted in Democrats gaining power of entire government.
That's off the top of my head.
Those are D grades.
Kit, By the way, I just saw your other comment in moderation. Can you repost that at the film site? I've been meaning to close the comments on the old film articles here at the main site.
You are right on some (I didn't say they were the best) but there are a few I want to contest you on:
"Started war in Middle East and then stopped short of victory resulting in decades long involvement by US troops and spawning of Al Qeada."
-First, Saddam started it. Not the United States.
-Second, response was necessary as the break-up of the Soviet Union created a political situation that was perilous and an act by someone such as Saddam could not be tolerated. Same thing with Panama.
-Kuwait has been a close ally ever since.
-Lack of victory: Due to the stain of Vietnam, Bush Sr. did not have the political capital to oust Saddam. (Thank you, Lyndon Johnson).
He appointed liberals such as David Souter
-And Clarence Thomas.
"Turned the world against the US through the invasion of Iraq and then lost the peace by not committing enough troops."
-I will admit that his handling of the insurgency in the first 3 years was disastrous but his troop surge and the appointment of men like Petraeus and Gates turned it around.
-His surge turned it around.
-Iraq led to thousands of Islamic extremists being gunned down, not in New York, Disney World, or elsewhere in the US, but in Baghdad.
Bill Whittle explains Iraq better: LINK
Both Bushes made major mistakes but "disastrous" is a term that should be reserved for people such as Carter, Obama, or Buchanan.
"Kit, By the way, I just saw your other comment in moderation. Can you repost that at the film site? I've been meaning to close the comments on the old film articles here at the main site."
Well, I barely remember it as it was after midnight. It was on LIAR, LIAR I remember and how the emotional story worked really well. I might send it to you.
Re: political dynasties.
In the US, they come and go. They last 2 or 3 generations and then fade out. I think the Bush family is started to fade out. They still have influence. (Big families normally do).
The Kennedys are fading out too. Though while the Bush family will simply slip into the background the Kennedys are just going to go out with lots of bangs down the road.
On Iraq and Sr., You can't blame Johnson for Bush not having the nerve to finish the job. Reagan shoved Vietnam aside and did the right thing repeatedly. There was no reason Bush couldn't do the same. He just panicked. And as a result, create a massive problem in that region which we are still struggling with today.
As for Saddam starting it, yes and no. Yes, he invaded Kuwait. But Saddam did not attack the US and Kuwait was not an ally of ours (or even a friend). So Bush is the one who got us involved, not Saddam.
Yes, he appointed Clarence Thomas and that's great, but that doesn't offset Souter. Appointing one liberal and one conservative is bad for us because the Democrats aren't going to do the same.
Bush Jr. finally got it right with the surge, but that doesn't excuse his initial failure and his continuing failures for years. That did a lot of damage to US credibility and the military which never had to happen.
In terms of calling them disasters, I think that as a conservative they were absolutely disasters. Bush Sr. stopped the advance of Reaganism cold. Bush Jr. all but destroyed conservatism. We are lucky that Obama proved to be an even bigger fool or there would be no conservatism today except on fringe blogs.
And don't forget, Bush Jr. also generated ZERO jobs in eight years, presided over an economic collapse and bank bailout which has wiped out generations of personal wealth and will continue to hurt people for the next couple generations and nearly bankrupted the country. That's not the record of someone with a passing grade.
Kit, That's true, these families eventually fade and the Bushes and the Kennedys are both fading.
I need to run, but I'll be back later.
Kit - I tend to agree with you. Though the Bushes seem to be slipping out as gracefully as they can - something the Kennedys just can't seem to do. Well they can't seem to do anything gracefully.
I did not realize that Bush Sr. never wrote the standard autobiography that all Presidents seem to do, but he allowed his good friend Jerry Weintraub to do a documentary "41" that is on HBO. I don't have HBO so I haven't seen it.
"As for Saddam starting it, yes and no. Yes, he invaded Kuwait. But Saddam did not attack the US and Kuwait was not an ally of ours (or even a friend). So Bush is the one who got us involved, not Saddam."
In 1990 the World order was changing from the Cold War to the Post-Cold War. When these shifts occur the time is ripe for minor actors to stir up problems. Saddam wanted to take advantage of that and if his attempt had been tolerated others (maybe Saddam) would've tried to do so.
Bush had to maintain some element of stability in both the region and the world. As Thatcher said "This is not time to go wobbly."
As Rick Atkinson wrote: "Saddam may not have been a Hitler, but Desert Storm prevented him from becoming one."
"Though the Bushes seem to be slipping out as gracefully as they can - something the Kennedys just can't seem to do."
Doing something gracefully is a skill the Kennedys tend to have trouble with.
All I know is that the "New World Order" stuff had my mom really freaked out at the time. Something she read in a book called The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow. Never read it myself.
Kit, I have to mostly agree with you. I have considerably less love for Dubya's father and brother than I do for him, and my main criticism of George H.W. Bush is that he didn't go after Saddam enough. But as for our 43rd, I still have a lot of admiration for his conduct after 9/11, and his ability to cut through the left-wing bullcrap and see the fight against Islamic terrorism as a fight against evil. His domestic agenda might not have been all that great, but it can't offset what he did in defending the country.
Bev, Is that what that is? I've seen it advertised and the moment I see politics on HBO, I change the channel.
Hey, whaddya know!? I just stumbled across my old James Carville action figure!
Kit, He did go wobbly. First, his State Department people stupidly gave Saddam the green light by saying they had no interesting Kuwait. Then Bush wouldn't go in except through the UN. Then, with total victory in our grasp, he stopped because CNN showed images of dead people on a highway. Then, to make it worse, he encouraged the Kurds and the Sunni (or Shia, can't remember) to rise up, only he gave them no support.
Whether or not starting the war was a good idea, the way he got weak at the end was horrible and it led to a massive American military presence in the region for 20+ years and a second war.
The Kennedy's don't do graceful... they do drunk and rapey.
tryanmax, That was a huge mistake because it was an attempt to merge all kinds of project like UN military action, international criminal courts, World Bank/IMF finances, the creation of the Euro, increasing the power of the World Trade Organization... and wrapping it all in traces of international elitism. It came across (and largely was) an attempt to strip American sovereignty and boost international NGOs and the UN.
It is the very thing which spawned populist movements around the world.
T-Rav, That's about the only good thing I give him credit for. But that doesn't outweigh the rest. Carter did good things too and if you want to judge him just on those, then he was a stunning success too.
tryanmax, Here's the real body double: LINK
Well Andrew all I have t say about Carville and and Co is this.....
Take a 100 million dollar grant through a street of Washington lobbying firms and who know what kind of trash will come out of the woodwork...
Andrew, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I never said Bush or any other president should be judged only on the good things they did, but I did say that after balancing those against the bad, I still think him a good president overall. And to put him on the same plane with Carter is a little ridiculous. Sorry, but that's just how I feel about it.
Indi, LOL! Nicely done.
T-Rav, We will have to disagree, but history and the public are on my side. The public rates him as the worst modern President. When he left office his approval rating was between 22% and mid-30% depending on the poll (the worst ever) and even now his approval rating remains at 43% -- the worst of any living president. Carter ranks next worse at 54% approval -- 11% higher than W.
Andrew, that may be, but I've never trusted the public to get anything right before, and I'm sure as heck not going to start now, especially not where anyone named Bush is concerned. As for history--we'll see.
Andrew
Regarding Bush's approval I think history will paint him much better than Carter. Fact of the matter is that while the Loan Crisis was bad the after effects really are Obama's fault than his. The startuop of it was due to the policies of Barney Frank in congress.
He had no time to do anything about it after it blew up and the failure is due to Obama's policies of spending. The public is responding to the MSM media spin which will get old after this election no matter who wins.
Carter is by far the worst ex president we have had this century. Obama is going to surpass him, alredy has in many ways.
Problem the left has is that by dedicating so much effort into trying to discredit his legacy he has no where to go but up.
Post a Comment