Obama names businessman Bryson to Commerce post

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama will nominate businessman John Bryson to lead the Commerce Department, a White House official said Tuesday. Bryson's appointment brings another private sector player into an administration that has been making a concerted effort to improve its relationship with the business community.

Actually, in this case it's more of the same, just faster. Bush II appointed the people in California who got Arnold elected. Some of them were of Bryson's misbegotten ilk.

Strange how often GWB's actions and statements agree with Obama's. For example, in 2008 GWB said "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent."

Yep. I'll never forget what Bush did to California with the appointment of Gerry Parsky. Never.

Many conservatives accepted much of what Bush said and did because, "He wouldn't do THAT; he's one of us." They developed selective blindness between what 'a conservative would do' and what he actually did, refusing to deal with their own cognitive dissonance. I hate to say it, but it reminds me of how these borderline idolatrous lemmings adulate Sarah Palin. Given her record, I'm afraid they'd be disappointed. The icon is not the person.

Neither Bush was truly a conservative, but instead they are stealth communitarians. They believe it is government's role to force the people to do good (which magically somehow also works out to whatever is good for them and their friends... you know... good people should prosper because of their good works (with other people's money))))))))). Ah well, whereever there's noblesse oblige, there's always droit de seigneur. He never did acknowledge that he owed his job to conservatives in FR in the first place for what we did in Florida and outside the Naval Observatory. As far as he was concerned, we were an annoyance. We are to sit down, shut up, and applaud on cue. He's a condescending pos that way, your basic spoiled brat gone civilized.

Conservatives were blinded to Bush by their own litmus test: abortion, about which he actually made a very few relatively inconsequential but high-profile bone-tossings while the societal underpinnings of accruing decline have remained intact. He almost got away with even worse until the conservatives finally screamed at the reality of his nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers and got Alito as a result. Did they learn anything from that? A bit, but not enough. He never did a thing to tame McCain while he let Estrada twist in the wind.

The actual array of moral life-and-death issues is far broader and deeper than one issue, but that is something with which he never dealt. It was a cover. "He's a nice man," on vacations, doing charity, giving the happy waves and blowing off doing ANYTHING to advance conservative principles while the country headed inexorably into an economic ruin he abetted with outrageous spending in Iraq and Afghanistan while he simultaneously allowed the enemy to infiltrate our porous borders. The only big difference between Bush (insert number) and a Nixon or a Ford is...

As an ex-president, Bush has done NOTHING to advance conservatism. Look at Clinton by comparison. I can only wait for the damage an "ex-president Obama" will do.

Hence, Bush is a stealth RINO. I'm not sure we will ever find out what he really thinks but we'd better grow up and stop putting blind faith in people who "say the right things." It's what they DO that matters. I don't ever want to see another primary season like 2008, but I'm afraid we're being set up again.

Conservatives were blinded to Bush by their own litmus test: abortion

I have to include myself in the ranks of those who were blind. I believed that because he was pro-life, that would take him on the right path with everything else.

When Bush joined hands with Kennedy and Reid to push amnesty, that knocked some sense into me. And it got worse after that, when he attacked us for opposing the amnesty swindle.

But as you know, it's not just Bush. After amnesty was defeated, some so-called "conservative" talk show hosts said that we had accomplished nothing by defeating amnesty (we were going to get a worse amnesty deal soon). Like the RINOS who surrendered to Crap and Trade because if they didn't pass it, the EPA would do something worse.

As an ex-president, Bush has done NOTHING to advance conservatism. Look at Clinton by comparison.

I'm glad he disappeared. If he started appearing on TV, it would remind voters why they don't want another GOP POTUS.

I too believe Bush did some good things as it relates to pro life. None the less, in eight years he didn’t try to defund family planning. (at least not to my recollection)

It’s my take that some of the folks who want us to think they’re on our side, do a couple of good things up front, that convince us they are, then they go about their lives never to address the issue again.

He had Congress and the Senate. Why not defund family planning clinics?

As I said, he does deserve some kudos too.

As for amnesty, I was thrilled he didn’t do it when he had the chance, Congress on his side. He could have had it for the asking.

The Dems wanted it, and enough Republicans wanted it so that it was a shoe-in. PTL

You know, teaming up with Ted Kennedy for anything should tell us something huh. Reid, I mean how low can a guy go?

I’m glad he disappeared too. The last thing I wanted to see was him come hawk amnesty from the bleachers.

Speaking of Clinton, weren’t you just thrilled when he rehabbed him by teaming him up with his dad, to head up the relief efforts in the Indian Ocean region after the tsunami?

Honestly, I thought that was one of the most bumble-headed ideas I’d ever seen.

Clinton was two-thirds the way to oblivion by then. I was absolutely shocked.

RE :”Neither Bush was truly a conservative, but instead they are stealth communitarians. They believe it is government's role to force the people to do good (which magically somehow also works out to whatever is good for them and their friends... you know... good people should prosper because of their good works (with other people's money))))))))). Ah well, where-ever there's noblesse oblige, there's always droit de seigneur’

I would put the above a different way, he took the position that it was his job to pass and sign whatever suited his fancy and whatever got him re-elected, and the SCOTUS job to throw it out if it was a blatantly unconstitutional expansion of federal powers in the eyes of liberal justices on the court. Campaign finance was a great example, just one.

Here's my Bush-bot imitation to give some balance, and laughs:

“He kept you safe. He is a man of honor. He is better than Barrack Obama. He meant well. He had a good heart. He captured Bin Laden(well it was his plan, the MSM wont tell you that.) He has a great wife who writes great books. He looks great in a suit or cowboy outfit. We should all work together to fight Democrats by defending Bush. McCain lost because he refused to let Bush campaign for him. Defend Bush or you help ‘the enemy’ Obama, Yabba dabba Do.“

I could go on :)

RE :"Pretty good list of bot talking points. Also, I have seen a lot of sophistry explaining why GWB did or said the same thing as Obama, but it was good when GWB did it. "The context was different...."

Another version I heard was that Bush did it because he made a poor judgement or got bad advice but he meant well, but Obama did the same thing because he is evil, and he hates and wants to destroy this country. Ironically I remember when Clinton was president Rush would lecture listeners on how liberals dont care about (their) poor results only (those like Clinton's) intentions, but that was before GWB.

Having to defend Bush meant having to contradict many arguments made against liberals in the 1990s.

Here's one example, we are 100% opposed to Obama's Dream act, yet even that is not as bad as some of immigration reform proposals that Bush was floating around as acceptable to him in early 2007 after Pelosi became Speaker. Also Bush and the Republican congress had no trouble funding planned parenthood and ACORN.

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.