I get the sense that more repubs mention Bush - positively, or negatively - the more people approve of Obama.

Obviously Newt is trying to attack Obama, while off-loading the Bush legacy from the repubs' brand. It's something that he could probably do, if he had the sense to shut up for a few years first.

Trying to connect Bush and Obama is not limited to Gingrich. All day yesterday and this AM, the theme on cable news was that Obama's new Iraq policy is a betrayal of his campaign promises, and a capitulation to Bush strategy. Reality has no place in a Republican argument.

To harp about inconsistency is just the hobgoblen of small minds! That Newt's message is contrary to other rethug talking points does not mean anything.

The whole point is to provide ammunition to fuel the fear and hatred of the base of the rethug party. That base being the 'low information voter'. The LIV will never acknowledge or accept that there are inconsistencies in the rethug message. As long as the rethugs continue to provide 'red meat' for their fear and anger, the LIV will continue to support the party without regard to how much damage the rethugs actually do to them.

From the Unabridged Dictionary of Republican-Speak:

Low Information Voter - Undereducated (mostly stupid) white males and females.

Gawd, it would be fantastic if the Republicans committed to the "hope" and "change" the Newtster offers... all the way to 2012!

he's the original "look, bright and shiny!" devolution from tricky dicky, and is just teh awesum!

well, actually he's a second-rate academician, and a glib, dickwad of a washed up pol...

If you're a GOPer, of COURSE it can be both. In fact isn't that what they spend a lot of time doing: simultaneously entertaining two contradictory thoughts in their little heads without ever bothering to notice? Steve, haven't you been paying attention at all for the past 20-30 years?

You misunderestimate the ability of wingers to hold two contradictory ideas in their heads at once.

Th: Jinx! Owe me a soda!

That conservatives idolize this tub of shit speaks volumes of how pathetic they have become. Most conservatives couldn't define "socialism" correctly if their lives depended on it. They think it has something to do with taking away freedom. Morons.

Look, conservatives don't know how to govern - they prove it every time they get a chance. FDR had to clean up the mess that Hoover and Coolidge left behind. Clinton had to clean up the mess left by Reagan and Bush I. Now, Obama has to clean up the mess left by Bush II - and it is ONE BIG FUCKING MESS. Ignore Newt - his three ex-wives do.

The Bush name has become so toxic that the Republican...uh..brain trust?? use it to try to bash Obama. Ouch! If you repeat Bush's name enough times in connection with Obama then people are going to start associating the two? Riiiight! Great strategy. I hope they put a LOT of money and energy into this one. I wonder how former President After the Towers Fell feels about that.

Obama's new 50,000 in Iraq until pigs fly policy is a betrayal of the image he tried to have with the anti-occupation crowd. It is no extreme reversal of Bush policy of 2008. This may have been necessary for any number of reasons, but that doesn't make it smell any better or cost any less.

I recall Gingrich trying to do the same thing 15 years ago, where it was all about the Bush-Clinton economic policies. Newt is just one big nostalgic act.

The whole 'Bush is liberal meme' is absurd and delusional, but at least we know that somewhere in the conservative's prehistoric acorn sized brains they've realized that Bush was awful and they're trying to rationalize it away.

Sorry Dr. Newtenstein, you have to take responsibility for your monster.

Pigs will fly in late 2011? Good to know, I'll get my bets placed now while the odds are long.

The fact is, responsible complete withdrawal can't happen much faster. It is always a hell of a lot easier to get into trouble than it is to get out, you know.

We don't even have the powerwashers to get the equipment out of theater to avoid the risk of invasive species back home.

well, michael78443853. looks like you're not paying attention again. or else you've simply changed obama's real policy into your own reality. but that isn't anything new for you.

In Republican land, anything is possible. That's why the stimulus bill can be simultaneously A) so big no one can read it and B) so stuffed with unnecessary spending that it's "porkulous."

Have no fear, the AP is on the case with stories here and here linking Obama's policies to those of Bush II. The tone of the stories is "that's not change you can believe in."

Obama is going to have to keep talking to Americans directly, because he'll never catch a break in the media. He'll also have to deliver on the economy, because people are pissed off.

I'm not a fan of David Sirota, but he makes a good point here that the GOP may revive itself if it can tap into the popular anger over the state of the economy. Laugh at the wingnuts all you want. They certainly deserve the ridicule, but don't let yourself believe that they aren't dangerous.

This was exactly the Republican's problems with framing Obama before the election as well.By throwing every negative slur at him they kept canceling each other out. He was both elitist and a street drug user, a member of a crazy Black church and a muslim, heck both the anti-Christ and Hitler.

The true believers at CPAC eat it up because they're happy to listen to any Obama = bad talk, but to anyone else the inconsistency makes them look nuts.

Those among us who have always been enamored by bright. shiny objects do ascribe to Newt Gringrich as intellectual. I for one have always seen him a bit too shallow for such a mantel. I will give him props, though, he has always been a very clever sloganeer! -Kevo

Steve, 3 posts today all centered around Republicans. It's not like Obama didn't give a radio/web adress this morning outlining his budget. Maybe a post about that with a link to the audio/video? Instead you amplify more Repubican bullshit.

btw/ NPR was a bastion of right wing talking points this am. Juan Williams and Scott Simon trashing Obama's budget with no specifics except Republican "tax and spend" propaganda. Thoroughly annoying. NOT ONE THING about what was in the budget or what the Obama's thoughts on the buget were.

Newtie was my representative in Congress when we lived in Georgia. Nor that he did much in the way of representation; he was too busy swanning around the talk shows and dodging process servers with alimony orders to bother with his constituents.

So I can assure you that you're wasting your time trying to make any sense of his pronouncements. He has always been willing to say and do anything that will get his smarmy puss in front of a camera. And getting air time now, of course, is a great deal more difficult than it was in 1994. Desperate situations call for desperate statements.

Shorter Gingrich (which is a horrible image, he would roll like a fart-propelled beachball):

It's four more years of Bush, except this one's BLACK -- so it's horrible! HORRIBLE I tell you!

Both, in other words.

Sure, he's crazy. What else is new?

The Internet Says It
I Believe It
And That Settles It

"Either Obama's approach is a radical change or it's Bush's agenda warmed over. It can't be both."

It seems that Newt's point has been missed. It was BUSH who made the radical change. Which other of Bush's spending proposals matched the scale of the bailout bill in the summer of '08?

Bush governed with fiscal irrationally for 7 and a half years, and then went completely insane in the last six months.

Unfortunately, the insanity is continued and augmented in the new administration.

well, michael78443853. looks like you're not paying attention again. or else you've simply changed obama's real policy into your own reality. but that isn't anything new for you.
Posted by: just bill on February 28, 2009 at 9:16 AM |

uh, bill, you might want to apologize to michael. he's right. there will in fact be at least 50,000 troops left in iraq after the "withdrawal." and no, it will not smell any better. sure, it will cost less having only 1/3 as many troops there, but this partial withdrawal is not what i understood by the promise of "full withdrawal within 16 months."

arguably, this is better than would have happened under mccain but it's not exactly what i would call victory for advocates of full withdrawal.

the comment threads here at political animal have been generally known for their thoughtful, on point discussion. unfortunately, more and more lately there have been these kind of "you're stupid" comments made by people who are more interested in cheerleading than addressing facts.

use "preview" before you hit "post" and consider whether you are adding to the conversation or just being an ass.

as far as the bush-obama nonsense by newt, i see it being red-meat for the base. they have taken the position that "bush was never really one of us" and this framing reinforces their belief in their own correctness.

I noticed this same thing yesterday. It was from a conservative in (I think) the WSJ who didn't specifically name Bush, but said Obama's plan was a continuation of the high government spending that got us in this mess to begin with. Yet they were also attacking Obama for blaming Republicans for our problems (which they themselves had just done), while acting like Obama's plan is some scary expansion of government power not seen since FDR.

Republican message discipline is dead. It's every argument for itself, these days.

Trends in Concern Trolling: "yeah, Bush was horrible, but Obama is just more of the same!"

Pigs will fly in late 2011? Good to know, I'll get my bets placed now while the odds are long.

The fact is, responsible complete withdrawal can't happen much faster. -- Blue Girl, @9:13

The trouble is that, the late 2011 doesn't mean a *complete* withdrawal, as you seem to suggest.

What we're now "promised" is the withdrawal, within 19 months, of the main combat forces. About 120K. The remaining 50K of what has been re-christened (the better to fool you, m'dear) from "residual" to "transition" forces will stay. Maybe not till pigs fly but we haven't been given an alternative date, either. And 50K is a whole lot of people to stay, possibly indefinitely.

I don't like it any more than Michael-of-many-numbers does. Which is why I'm happy that Pelosi is unhappy with that number. As is Reid, as is Schumer and some others as well. I think it' possible that Obama is being crafty here and that he's proposed a big number on purpose, so that he can be denied it, by the Congress. Maybe even by the "we can't afford to keep 50K there forever; Obama is asking way to much, who does he think he is" Republicans.

Which, I think, would suit Obama to a T.

OK; my bad, apologies to Blue Girl.

On re-reading some stuff, I see that the end of 2011 *is* the aim for the total withdrawal, with August 2010 being the withdrawal date for the main body of the combat troops.

karen marie, i have no intention of apologizing to michael, and i take offense at your remarks. apparently you also were not paying attention to obama during the campaign or else chose to hear what you wanted to hear. i certainly wasn't ever under the delusion that obama intended to withdraw 100% of the troops within 16 months, and if you were, i guess that is your problem. michael's posting also indicated a similar lack of understanding of what obama's proposals were during the campaign.

as for calling me an ass, i guess that is your right, but i think now you owe me an apology.

Whatever happened to old Newt? He got his start as a Sierra Club volunteer, but it's been all downhill from there.

I heard that within the beltway it is Newt, not Clinton, that is given credit for originating the "it wasn't sex, it was just a blow job" defense - one of the reasons his Republican colleagues were so eager to dump him after the Clinton impeachment.