Posted on 05/02/2011 8:58:54 AM PDT by xzins
I don't accept the baseball analogy: "Bush gets the W and Obama picks up the S."
That is a party-based response, and the truth is that Osama was eliminated on Obama's watch. His team gets due credit. (Of course, the ultimate credit goes to the Seal Team [and the Army helicopter unit as evidenced by Chinooks and Blackhawks?]).
Obama has been in charge over 2.5 years now, so the systems are his, the leadership teams are his, the directions are his, and that's not just with the military. It's the same with everything from the Justice Dept to the Treasury to the SS Administration to the Economy.
It's all his. He gets credit for what's right and blame for what's wrong.
Gasoline prices are due to his manipulations. Joblessness is his due to his (lack of) vision for America's future and his insistence on huge tax increases. The dominance of China in markets that formerly belonged to us are due to his inaction. Oil spills are his. A sluggish economy is his. World historic debt is his. Rapidly increasing inflation is his.
Nothing can any longer be about GW Bush. Bush is yesterday's news.
Eric Leonard KFI news. I heard it on the Bill Handel show coming to work. I think you can listen to the replay of the 7 O'Clock hour as they post the podcasts almost immediately after each show.
To say the economy began to crumble under Bush does not establish blame on Bush. Sure, he received blame, but wherein was such blame deserved and wherein was it not deserved is the question.
Fanny and Freddie? The Bush people saw that one coming. They tried to warn, but were rebuffed by the Dems in Congess. Barney Frank and Maxine Waters et al ridiculed and stonewalled the warning and it was people like them that held Congressional power.
I was very tuned in to the economy when it became obvious that Obama actually might win the election. If you look at when it began to totally tank bigtime, it was when people who move and shake the economy - from Wall Street to Main Street - realized this and were struck with a sick fear of what this leftist would do in office to harm the economy.
They reacted accordingly, and their fears of an Obama Administration were dead on as subsequent events have proven.
Respectfully disagree. Obama has been in power for more than one Congress' worth of time---2.5 years.
Truman was in charge little more than a 4 months when WWII ended in Germany and 7 months when it ended in Japan.
Bush gets blame for falling for the "sky-is-falling" scheme leading to the 700 billion(?) bail-out under his watch. Many have stated it would have been better to just let the chips fall and fail to prop up institutions that played and lost. I agree. We went MONTHS before they even started spending that money, so obviously the insistence at the time that it happen before a particular day (Friday?) was clear alarmism.
Intelligence is constantly being developed, filed, and processed. Putting the puzzle pieces together is the big prize at the end of little victories that result in information that no one has a clue about yet.
A bumper number is just a bumper number until someone attaches it to a major unit moving a certain direction at a certain time.
But, it is stored. Such intel is always being stored. In my enlisted days, I did that job.
Forget who get the win and who gets the save.
The guy who could have prevented all this was Bill Clinton.
Clinton has several opportunities to capture of kill Osama Bin Laden. Everything was in place but he would never give the requested “go” order.
All Clinton ever did was lob a few cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan.
Remind this fact to every Democrat who’s gloating today.
I’m far more concerned with Obama getting credit for gasoline price manipulation, unemployment rates, sluggish economy, and growing inflation.
I said the same thing!
It is pointless to debate anyone who will say that Bush must be blamed for two things or neither, that happened when he was President, and the Democrats the same.
The principle is wrong.
No surprise then, that you would use something Bush tried to do in reaction to a perceived financial meltdown, as an example of why he deserved blame for the economy going into recession. They are two different things. He reacted to a financial crises by proposing TARP. Right or wrong, that’s different from saying he deserves blame for the economy going into a recession. I pointed out he tried to warn of the financial crises caused by bad loans in the system but was rebuffed by those with real power, in Congress.
Most of his two terms, after we got past September 11, the economy benefited from his tax cuts that he ran on and chugged along at a good growth clip.
I never claim that every thing he tried or did was perfect. I do point out the truth that overall his economic record of growth was pretty good. But to someone who insists that whatever happened in two areas must either be credited or blamed on whoever was President during that period, my points will not be allowed to stand. That’s your schtick, and you will stick to it. Even if it means you bring up something extraneous to the point and run with that as if you proved the point.
Bye now.
Should've said, "and you will schtick to it."
:>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.