Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 13, 2009

REMEMBER GWB?.... Following up on yesterday's item on the Bush economic policies creating something akin to a lost decade, reader C.G. reminded me of this item from Jim Kessler and Anne Kim in April.

10.8% unemployment, 6.2% inflation, and a doubling of the deficit over the previous year. Those were the cold truths that President Reagan and Republicans faced in November 1982. Yet despite this bleak economic news, and widespread predictions that Republicans would lose the Senate, they retained their 54 Senate seats and limited House losses to 27 seats, many as a result of redistricting. In 2010, the shoe could be on the other foot. President Obama and congressional Democrats could be riding out the worst recession since, at least, 1982. And Republicans will be salivating at the chance to pick up seats by tying Democrats to Obama and the economy.

So, what did Republicans do in '81 and '82? Among other things, Reagan and his allies kept reminding people of why they didn't like Carter/Mondale.

Even in 1982, the economy was described as suffering from the "Carter Recession." Every bit of bad news was assigned to the previous regime; every morsel of good news was evidence of a Reagan-led recovery.

Right. "Carter Recession" was on the lips of every Republican in D.C. in the early 1980s. As a substantive matter, the label was foolish -- blaming Carter for inflation and global oil prices didn't make sense -- but the GOP needed a way to constantly remind the public (and the media) of perceived failures of the previous administration.

When Reagan's initial round of massive tax cuts failed to produce the desired results -- unemployment soared after Reagan and the GOP's plan passed -- it became all the more important to characterize Carter as the villain.

The relevance of this to the current landscape should be obvious. One of the most effective spin jobs Republicans launched, and the media embraced, this year was the notion that Democrats are not supposed to "look back" and "play the blame game" for the mess Bush/Cheney left. President Obama, we were told, was expected to fix the problems, not talk about those responsible for creating the problems.

Jeb Bush told Sean Hannity in April, "If I had one humble criticism of President Obama, it would be to stop this notion of somehow framing everything in the context of 'Everything was bad before I got here' and focus on his duties, which we all want him to succeed. But constantly pushing down the previous president to make yourself look good I think is a bad thing."

Obama hadn't been "constantly pushing down" Bush's failures, and everything really was bad before he got there, but Dems seemed sensitive to this criticism. And the majority party, displaying their strategic wisdom, effectively responded, "We'll show you -- we'll stop mentioning Bush altogether! So there!"

I realize there's a limit to the public's tolerance for shifting blame, but if the Reagan White House and its allies were throwing around "Carter Recession" quite a bit as late as 1982, shouldn't Dems at least consider the possibility of mentioning the "Bush Recession?" Especially since it's, you know, true?

Obama talks a great deal about the importance of taking responsibility. But there's a reasonable case to be made that, by avoiding blame for Bush/Cheney, the president is taking too much responsibility for challenges that were almost entirely his predecessor's fault.

Taking a step back to consider the year's political fights, just about every single problem this administration has faced, and continues to face, stems from Bush's failures, incompetence, and mismanagement. The moment President Obama was sworn in, he had to deal with an economy in free fall, soaring unemployment, a collapsing U.S. auto industry, a health care system in crisis, a housing crisis, a looming global warming catastrophe, two costly wars, a $1.2 trillion deficit, a $10 trillion debt, a pessimistic electorate, a Guantanamo fiasco, and a global landscape in which the United States had lost much of its global prestige.

Most of 2009 has been a debate about those who approve of the ways Obama is trying to clean up Bush's mess and those who disapprove of the ways Obama is trying to clean up Bush's mess. The common thread should be obvious here.

How Republicans convinced Democrats to stop even mentioning Bush's name is one of the year's most effective con jobs, but it's not too late for the majority to shift back.

The former president's name is somehow considered verboten in our political discourse. Given reality, and in the interests of accountability, isn't it time to reintroduce the country to the reason they moved towards Democrats in the first place?

Steve Benen 12:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Our well of democracy has been poisoned with venomous political rhetoric and absurd political demonstrations! Lindsay Graham is now spewing on what hes calls the ineffective, disastrous speech by Pres. Obama.

These are sad days here in America with all these white folks unwilling to give up their sense of entitlement! -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on September 13, 2009 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, that doesn't mean we can't do the job for the White House. We? Bloggers, letter to the editor writers, protesters, authors, op-edsters.

That said, I think the White House really has to turn around and take back the script. It was taken away in the Carter years, wasn't retrieved during the Clinton years, and now it looks as though Obama will follow the same path. I want a president who's not a scaredy-cat as both Clinton and Carter were. FDR would be best. A little protein powder from LBJ wouldn't do any harm either.

Posted by: PW on September 13, 2009 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I agree !
Lets stop pointing fingers and start handing down indictments .

Posted by: FRP on September 13, 2009 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Reagan and his allies kept reminding people of why they didn't like Carter/Mondale.

The key to the success of Republicans in general and Reagan in particular has always been reminding people of who they don't like - whether that's African-Americans, Hispanics, liberals, gays, Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter.

That's all they ever had: "Vote for us. We don't like those people any more than you do."

Posted by: Roddy McCorley on September 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

If I understand my Right Wing Talking Points correctly, the problems that we've had these last several years, and continue to have, are because of:
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton... OBAMA, Obama, Obama, Obama.

Posted by: josef on September 13, 2009 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

It's hard to pretend this isn't the Bush/Cheney depression.

Posted by: jeff on September 13, 2009 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Bush gave us more than just a recession--almost a depression, so instead of the Bush Recession perhaps we should refer to the Bush Repression.

Posted by: Dale on September 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

It all comes back to the point that there is no conversation you can have with Republicans.

Posted by: cld on September 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

It's too late.

The time to brand the smashed economy with Bush's name started at least in August 2008 and needed to continue until recovery. In other words, you keep at the message identifying the other guy with the bad economy until the economy improves, when you change your message to claiming credit for the good economy.

Starting to do it all NOW pretty much accepts the other side's framing, which is that the (currently quite bad) economy is entirely the responsibility of the good guys.

The best we could do now is probably to simply start referring to "the Bush crash".

Posted by: theAmericanist on September 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

already and for some time now, our discourse is on the coming failure of the obama administration, the coming darkness of a right wing continuation of BushCo -- and perhaps even worse.

now, concern trolls can keep calling us out as concern trolls -- accusing us of self-fulfilling prophecies.

Bullshit.

If the obama administration had not been so timid, so shirking and 'bi-partisan' then we wouldn't be constantly having this sinking feeling -- ever since the inauguration. and if the obama admin would wake up and get tough, we would be heartened greatly.

but it is so obvious that nothing is going well. and this administration is sitting still andwill drift backward in the backwash of the BushCo disasters, and into the many political traps set by his fellow travelers. (the reagan strategy about carter looks like good ol' christian love in comparison to the racist right wing strategies we are seeing and will see grow worse and worse.)

we're pretty much screwed, my friends. rahm and barack, they got theirs -- they are set. and don't both askin' about timmy, helicopter ben and the other stepford economists. when the supreme court comes thru with a strengthen corporatist state, democracy is flat-lining here in the united snakes.

Posted by: neill on September 13, 2009 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

How far do you think the right's voice would carry without the cooperation of the media? I give a lot of credit to Steve and Glenn and Josh and Markos and others who have helped build an strong addition onto the media's big house. But now we need to take the house itself back. Until then, we're just griping in a corner. It's not impossible. It just takes focus and cooperation and the ability to hit 'em from all sides.

Posted by: PW on September 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

cld understands.

Republican voters are extremely tribal and their wingnut falangists are capable of breathtaking dishonesty.

What's that? You've got a reasoned argument employing logic and historical accuracy? Silly liberal. The right will just shout you down. Successfully, too, because the liberal media will not act as a corrective and your Democratic legislators won't back you up.

Posted by: henry lewis on September 13, 2009 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Steve,
I'll grant you your main point. But, there was also the complicity of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress in enabling Bush and the financial fall. Who did vote for the Iraq war resolution? And Who did weaken the regulations on the financial biggies who brought us to our knees? Lots of Dems and Reps on that list.

Posted by: lou on September 13, 2009 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

I realize there's a limit to the public's tolerance for shifting blame, but if the Reagan White House and its allies were throwing around "Carter Recession" quite a bit as late as 1982, shouldn't Dems at least consider the possibility of mentioning the "Bush Recession?" Especially since it's, you know, true?

It's true now, but it won't be a year from now. Most likely we will be in a noticeable recovery and Democrats will benefit, but there is always the possibility that failure to rein in Wall Street will result in another clusterfuck by then and that will rest on the shoulders of the Obama economics team.

Posted by: Shalimar on September 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Take a play from the early Bush days and shove it down their collective obstructionist throats; not just on health care, but on everything: environment, green policy, education, DADT, civil rights, finance reform...

Posted by: nuttylittlenutnut on September 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

I want a president who's not a scaredy-cat as both Clinton and Carter were. FDR would be best. A little protein powder from LBJ wouldn't do any harm either.

Well, I agree about FDR. Since the context of Steve's post is holding the Repubs responsible in the upcoming midterms for their failures that the incumbent Dem admin has had to deal with, Roosevelt and the Dems did outstandingly well in 1934, with net gains in both chambers.

But in LBJ's only midterm, 1966, the Dems suffered a very bad loss -- 47 in the House, 3 senate, and 8 governorships. Johnson was hardly to be seen on the campaign trail, spending most of the weeks leading up to Nov on a long trip to Asia, and then cancelling at the last minute a planned final week campaign blitz for cong'l candidates. He also stymied party financial efforts, too.

I think, PW, you should add Lyndon Johnson to your list of "scaredy-cat" presidents. A bit of a political coward, imo.

Clinton? Mixed bag in the midterm context. Poor showing in 1994, for sure. But much better for his second time around in 1998 -- best performance by the incumbent party since '34 -- and even though that was the embarrassing Year of Monica, he still had the courage to show up and campaign wherever he could be helpful.

Posted by: brodie on September 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Good old Landslide Lyndy

Posted by: nuyytlittlenutnut on September 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

We need to start taking back the debate - possibly by just letting everyone buy into medicare coverage. We should also start attending teabagger events with signs like:

Bush can tap my phones, but Obama can't regulate insurers

Medicare for the old, YES!
Medicare for everyone? NO!

Cut Taxes for Wall Street Brokers!


Posted by: RepubAnon on September 13, 2009 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

Brodie -- You're probably right or at least half right about LBJ. He looks different from here in TX. But Clinton? I never thought Clinton was a Democrat, just someone who came to the party wearing the right clothes and singing the right songs, had a few beers, courted and nailed some of us (but not others) and then drove off in his limo. Read NAFTA and weep.

But then I'm an old Dem and have had to move away from the party to stay with the left.

Posted by: PW on September 13, 2009 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Obama doesn't use Bush's name, but he often reminds everyone during a speech that he inherited the deficit, the prev. admin paid for nothing, and started the bailouts. He did it last Wed while they sat there and squirmed. He does it at townhalls when he talks about the recovery act. It is the rest of the msg machine that does nt work. The only thing they talk about is the "public option." It has became quite tedious. Ambinder had the results of a focus group and they did still blame Bush for the spending, debt, and deficit. They don't blame Obama, but they are blaming Congress--both parties.

Posted by: cat on September 13, 2009 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Note also, hypocrisy by current teabaggers: they say they protest bigger debts and deficits (often not knowing the difference), but:
1. Didn't complain during Bush 43's years.
2. Did anyone hear them excoriating or repudiating Dick Cheney, who said ""Reagan proved deficits don't matter,"?

Posted by: N e i l B on September 13, 2009 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

The left needs to copy the repuglicans and start calling the media on its rightwing bias. If you say it enough, it will become true for those who seem unable to see the truth when it hits them in the middle of their eyes. Remember: the press has a rightwing bias, the press has a rightwing bias, the press has a rightwing bias, the press has a rightwing bias . . .

on and on ad nauseum.

Posted by: Bonnie on September 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

And yet Obama does everything in his power to own the financial crisis (pushing TARP, not nationalizing the failed banks), torture (how long is 120 days?), illegal spying on citizens. It's almost like he wants to be a 1 term preznit.

Posted by: tc on September 13, 2009 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Tom Tomorrow deletes yesterday:

http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2009/09/1-20-09_the_date_history_began.html

Posted by: Grumpy on September 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

brodie,

"Clinton? Mixed bag in the midterm context. Poor showing in 1994, for sure. But much better for his second time around in 1998 -- best performance by the incumbent party since '34"

Actually, it was the first time a President gained congressional seats after six years in office in about 100 years.

Posted by: Joe Friday on September 13, 2009 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

"One of the most effective spin jobs Republicans launched, and the media embraced.." was later implemented by none other than Barack Obama.

Posted by: JW on September 13, 2009 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

To place blame on the previous Bush/Cheney administration for what evil has befallen our nation would require placing blame, too, on the corporate interests that drove everything that Bush and Cheney did during their tenure as "public servants."

Ooooh, this is the block.

For President Obama and the Democrats to blame (and rightfully so) the previous Republican administration for what has happened to America, they'd have to blame all the corporate sponsors of the worst and most corrupt administration in American history. And certain Democrats, both in the White House and Congress, are deathly afraid of doing anything that might interfere with that corporate cash flowing into their campaign coffers.

Thus, the Bush/Cheney administration (especially top officials) are being given retroactive immunity, just as the telecom companies were given retroactive immunity.

The pattern is clear. The pattern of corporate corruption of our democratic institutions is even clearer, including the U.S. Supreme Court, where Chief corporatist Justice John Roberts is pushing through a ruling that will unleash unlimited and relentless corporate funding of right-wing political campaigns on our nation.

We The People elected a Democrat last November to be our next president, our next chief "public servant," to put a stop to this corporate reign of terror which reached new heights (and lows) during the Bush/Cheney years. But to get to (and hold accountable) the corporatists behind the Bush/Cheney administration's many greed-driven policies and practices, one must first go through top officials in the Bush/Cheney administration (and hold them accountable). Just as to get at (and hold accountable) top Bush/Cheney administration officials, one must first go through the ranks of the corporatists (and their lobbyists) who are using the threat of the corporatists not being generous in doling out campaign contributions as a defense against any attempts to hold them and Bush/Cheney administration officials accountable for their criminal acts and thefts.

The corporatists have gotten the government they've always wanted, one that is not beholden to We The People, but only to them. President Obama was elected to stop this trend toward tyranny-by-oligarchy, and even reverse it. However, signs of this happening anytime soon do not look promising.

Posted by: The Oracle on September 13, 2009 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone should just refer to the last 8 years as "the Bush debacle"...

It's short, sweet, the truth and a great way to refer to 8 years of breaking every aspect of the American ideology.

Posted by: DougW on September 13, 2009 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Bad advice.

The 1982 elections were a rebuke to Reagan. Republicans may have campaigned on the slogan that it was all Carter's fault, but at that point, voters weren't buying.

Losing 27 House seats was a disaster. It brought the number of Republicans down to 166, and ended the Reagan Revolution, at least domestically. You should remember that the Republicans, along with DEMOCRATS (at the time) like Phil Gramm, had a working majority in the House. But it was gone after 1982, and Tip O'Neill had full control again.

In the Senate, the Democrats didn't pick up any seats, but they went 20-13 in the races that year. By 1986, the Republican Senate majority was gone, too. And I looked at the Republican senators who won; most had very tight races.

1982 was a disaster for Reagan. He had to change everything domestically.

The elections 2010 will depend on the state of the economy in the fall of 2010. You can blame it on GWB, it is mainly his fault, but saying it doesn't mean people believe it.

Posted by: PDX Pete on September 13, 2009 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Partisan asshole.

Posted by: Spotty's Dad on September 14, 2009 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

Anyone going to mention the responsibility of the Dems in congress blocking attempts to reform Fanny and Freddy and laying most of the legislative groundwork for the sub-prime fiasco that led to this whole mess? Judging by the flavor of the previous comments I'd guess not.

It's a shame that party affliation often blinkers our vision. In many ways Bush was a bumbling fool, but you can't blame him for everything you know! It would be nice if the Dems could actually admit that they've made some pretty monumental mistakes in their time too!

Posted by: Lee on September 14, 2009 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, why was it ridiculous for Republicans to blame Carter but "you know, true?" to blame this recession on Bush> Typical partisan BS, you don't care about solving problems or getting at the truth, just "us vs. them", you want your team to win. People like you are what's wrong with this country.

Posted by: Deepak Bansal on September 14, 2009 at 3:25 AM | PERMALINK

FINALLY, the media starts to point out the Reagan unemployment figures which increased to over 10% in the first 2 years of Reagan's presidency. What the hell took you all so long!!!

Posted by: Jose Sanchez on September 14, 2009 at 3:57 AM | PERMALINK

this is ridiculous blather from some beltway nerd. every administration blames the past one. and FYI, geekboy, Carter's was a TERRIBLE presidency. but mainly, this is silly partisan nonsense essentially a total waste of paper, uh, hard drive space....

Posted by: sub on September 14, 2009 at 4:50 AM | PERMALINK

Sounds like Mr. Bene is not content with blaming everything on GWB, but needs to go back further and say the blame really starts with Ron Reagan.

I'd say this is the pot calling the kettle black, but then I'd be accused of racism for some insane reason (yes, I'm talking abt you whiny dems, not Prez Obama)

Now Kevo's statement...

Whose "fault" is it?
The Prez proposes, CONGRESS disposes; and who elects them all?
Those citizens who vote.
Plenty of blame to go around - accept it and move forward.

Posted by: HarryB on September 14, 2009 at 5:39 AM | PERMALINK

1982!?? I remember noticing in 1986!! that Reagan still harked back to Carter.

Posted by: Pauline Reage on September 14, 2009 at 6:08 AM | PERMALINK

Just to let the good folks know, BOTH parties STINK to high hell.

Corruption, cronyism, incompetence, greed, nepotism and so on and so forth are the products of power on small minds. Unfortunately we have lots of VERY small minds in DC in both crappy parties.

Posted by: Dave on September 14, 2009 at 7:03 AM | PERMALINK

Liberals are so predictable. They cried when President Bush was in office. They elect "hope and "change", and they still cry. You have the White House, a majority in the HOR, and nearly 60 Senators and you still blame the Republicans. Do your thing, Democrats. Oh wait, the sensible among you know that if they go along with socialism they will be back chasing ambulances next November. It's easy to scream wingnut, radical, and right wing obstruction when things don't go your way. Quit crying and do something.

Posted by: Doug on September 14, 2009 at 7:05 AM | PERMALINK

There are many flaws in this article. The biggest are:

1. What Reagan inherited was much worse than what Obama inherited. (Also, Reagan had to negotiate with Democrats, and they slowed the enactment of his policies.) The idea that you can compare situations decades apart is idiocy.

2. Obama's policies haven't and won't improve things. If Obama knew anything about econ, he'd understand why. (Also, some of the things Obama blames Bush for are things he voted for while in Congress!)

Posted by: Kevin Berner on September 14, 2009 at 7:21 AM | PERMALINK

Irrelevant, this isn't 1982. America today has the attention span of a 2 yr old. Half of America won't remember who Bush was in 2010. Far more important is that the inexperienced youth (kids who actually think pols tell the truth and therefore believed Obamas horse sh*t) aren't going to care because there won't be a trendy man to vote for and the seniors do care and will vote rep over the dems idiotic health care reform.

Posted by: mike on September 14, 2009 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

Amazing how much all you liberals drink your own bathwater. The premise of this article (that Carter policies didn't cause the recession) is simply wrong. Carter is infamous for his lack of skills and judgement. And he should be. I voted for the man, and have regretted my vote ever since. Like him or not, Reagan was exactly what America needed in 1980. His tax cuts worked. Its insanity to continue making the same mistakes over again folks. Tax cuts will turn our economy around again if Mr. Obama will be smart enough to use them.

Posted by: Lawur2 on September 14, 2009 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder why it is always one party or the other party in politics as in the end a compromise has to be reached between both parties before anything is passed and sent to the President to either sign or veto. Congress and the Senate controls the agenda as the President can only ask for items to be created he wants. In the Congress and Senate we have politicans of both sides being bribed by the lobbyists to get their agenda passed and not an outcry from the public because in most cases it means jobs which people need. So bride on one hand and back peddle on the other. Not what is best for the nation as a whole, but, by area.

Posted by: Gene44 on September 14, 2009 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK
The premise of this article (that Carter policies didn't cause the recession) is simply wrong.

That is not what the article said. And what it did actually say was quite correct.

Like him or not, Reagan was exactly what America needed in 1980. His tax cuts worked.

Complete garbage. What "worked" was Paul Volcker at the Fed, willing to make the tough decisions that Alan Greenspan a couple of decades later was afraid to make. Reagan's tax cuts did nothing other than to expand the deficit, and eventually had to be offset by tax increases in every other year of his term, followed by tax increases in the Bush the elder's administration, followed by tax increases in the Clinton administration. Only then did the deficit start coming under control.

If tax cuts worked as you claim, then we should not be where we are today because the Bush administration did nothing *but* pass tax cuts. And if they worked as you claimed, then we should have seen massive recessions in Reagan's second term, Bush the elder's term, and Clinton's two terms, none of which actually happened.

Its insanity to continue making the same mistakes over again folks.

Like using "tax cuts" as an economic cure-all when it has been conclusively shown that they do no such thing? And that they lead to massive deficits unless they are matched by spending cuts? And that cutting spending during a recession is something that every economist out there will tell you emphatically that you should *not* do?

Tax cuts will turn our economy around again if Mr. Obama will be smart enough to use them.

Uh-huh... And your explanation of the past eight years is, what, exactly?

Posted by: PaulB on September 14, 2009 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK
Obama's policies haven't and won't improve things.

Um, yes, actually, they have.

If Obama knew anything about econ, he'd understand why.

ROFL.... Oh, the irony....

Posted by: PaulB on September 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

"The Bush Debacle"

Posted by: jmichaeldavid on September 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

From the WSJ in reference to this blog:
"What planet does this guy live on? For one thing, Obama is constantly dodging responsibility for the problems he "inherited," when in truth he did not inherit anything. By running for president, he sought the responsibility he now tries to evade.

For another, while Bush has adhered to the tradition by which former presidents do not publicly criticize their successors, Dick Cheney, who as a former vice president is not bound by this tradition, has weighed into the public debate over the treatment of terrorist detainees, Obama has defended his policies, and Cheney has won every argument.

The Bush administration's domestic policies would perhaps be more difficult to defend, were Cheney inclined to do so. But it seems to have escaped Benen's notice that Obama's chief domestic initiative, a massive and likely highly destructive expansion of the federal government's role in health care, has nothing to do with any crisis he "inherited" but is entirely the product of Obama's out-of-control ambitions and the ideology of the Democratic left."

Posted by: alfred hussein neuman on September 14, 2009 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

"avoiding blame for Bush/Cheney" - heh. Those two might want to avoid blame, but this Administration and this Congress do not let a week go by without blaming B_C for any problem that might arise. Yeah, health care has problems, has had for decades - more later...

"I realize there's a limit to the public's tolerance for shifting blame, but if the Reagan White House and its allies were throwing around "Carter Recession" quite a bit as late as 1982"
before the inauguration in 1993
"Jeb Bush told Sean Hannity in April, "If I had one humble criticism of President Obama, it would be to stop this notion of somehow framing everything in the context of 'Everything was bad before I got here' and focus on his duties, which we all want him to succeed. But constantly pushing down the previous president to make yourself look good I think is a bad thing."
Four months after inauguration.

It is now September, 8-9 months after inauguration, and all the blame is still on Bush.

Even, as you do, for the failure to pass in a couple of months [weeks?] "Health Care [well, health insurance, for starters] for Everyone" Which has been in the works for over sixty years with only "let's help old folks and children" passed.

Posted by: teqjack on September 14, 2009 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately for all of us, Obama's cure-all's are proving to do far more harm than good. He was filled with promises that are proving to be beneficial to no one outside of unions, the Dem political machine that helped him get elected and his buddies who are benefiting from his cronyism. This Chicago-style political movement is not the change we had hoped for.

Meanwhile, Dems continue to blame Bush while failing to recall that Bush's economy did quite well despite the .com bubble, 9/11, two wars and a myriad of other problems that plagued his time in office. Unemployment in this country hit a low of 4.6% during his Presidency and only began to climb after the Dems took control of congress three years ago. Pelosi is an embarrasment, yet the loyal party members continue to stand behind her? Plenty of blame to go around, I'd say.

Posted by: Jamamama on September 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Hi! UMLDRbYf

Posted by: zzwdWahT on November 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly