"Bush Recession". Excellent.

More catch phrases like this, please.

Based on the Princeton study, we can confidently say that Obama rescued the country from the brink of a "Bush Depression."

Success!

AP survey: A bleaker outlook for economy into 2011
By JEANNINE AVERSA (AP) - 12 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The U.S. economic recovery will remain slow deep into next year, held back by shoppers reluctant to spend and employers hesitant to hire, according to an Associated Press survey of leading economists

And secondly, we're creating new jobs that are going to be the kind you can raise your family on."

Like?

Perhaps it's a response to the recent attempts to rehabilitate the Bush legacy. But your point is well-taken; Bush should have been tagged with this recession early and at every opportunity.

I have another comment to make, I have never seen any desire on the part of past administrations to do anything about illegal immigration, why is it now an emergency, especially in view of the fact that many illegals are leaving because of no jobs and also this administration is deporting more than Bush did. Also - Bush said he would build a fence, I am sure if Obama asked for money to build a fence the repubs would fillibuster it and say we do not have the money - what is the answer, the repubs are blaming Obama for their problems.

Long overdue with that appropriate label.

Love it (and Biden), but given that Bush is so 'old history' to so many voters, I'd be tempted to go with "The Republican Recession". A) It's true, B) the reference is more current and serves as a more immediate reminder to low-information voters of whom not to vote for, and C) as long as we give a more positive message as well, "Do you really want to go back to the Republican Recession?" is a great secondary theme for the fall campaign.

"...also this administration is deporting more than Bush did."

You bet. Now the Feds are making sure that the "sanctuary city" thing is being shut down as well.

Obama (especially) sand the Senate Democrats have been hopelessly naive for over a year on the intentions and methods of the Republicans. They have made major strategic and tactical errors in not trying to change public opinion and to break the Senate filibuster.

“With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.”
— Abraham Lincoln

From the beginning (the stimulus bill), Obama has accepted unnecessary limits on the breadth and depth of the changes he advocated. In fact, he has been less of a public advocate as opposed to one of many negotiators around a table. Obama and the Democrats won the election convincingly with large majorities in Congress. Voters, more than they have been in years, are (or at least were)receptive to broad, deep and fundamental shifts in the direction this country is headed. What holds (held) back most of this change is a President more concerned with process and procedure rather than removing major obstacles [especially the filibuster] so as to effectively use his electoral mandate.

The most effective presidents have understood that speaking publicly and rallying people is one of their primary powers-- greater than their veto, ability to command armies or crafting regulations. Great presidents have made broad claims of power because of their popular support. Take FDR:
“I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.
But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

Where is the Obama equivalent of a freshly elected FDR telling Congress that if it does pass not his agenda, he's going to demand something like the Enabling Act of 1933-- or exercising martial powers as great as those that Lincoln used during a period of armed insurrection! ?? Intransigent opposition politicians repeatedly called FDR a dictator, much as they did Lincoln. But in part because public sentiment was mostly with him and their political futures depended on his success, Congress decided it had better pass the New Deal. Not all of it, but most of it. And the beneficial effects of the legislation were easy to immediately discern its --- unlike complicated insurance reform with most benefits (if they survive) obvious four years hence.

Reformist presidents, at their best, capture the public sentiment and use it to push through measures that entrenched interests are firmly against. Obama has taken on some very tough and complicated issues. But as a political leader, he has largely withdrawn from engagement and has acted as “Compromiser in Chief”. Democratic government is inherently a political business and any president is inherently a political leader. When making fundamental change, politics must be played—and played to win.

For Obama and he Dems, the problem underlying all the partial or complete failures in passing bills for really effective economic stimulus, health care reform, financial system reform, carbon emission reforms, etc., etc.---- is the Senate filibuster requiring 60 votes for cloture rather than a simple majority. Break that--- and effective legislation and popular legislation that has immediate and obvious benefits rapidly follows. The filibuster could have been/can be broken with 50 votes plus Biden. To many, this problem was obvious in early 09. Senate Dems and Obama especially never made the effort. Obama especially still doesn’t seem to recognize the real problem and has made no real effort to move public opinion. Obama and the Democrats are suffering the consequences of not having moved public sentiment that may be very severe in the 11/10 elections and will only get worse after 11/10.

Love it (and Biden), but given that Bush is so 'old history' to so many voters, I'd be tempted to go with "The Republican Recession". A) It's true, B) the reference is more current and serves as a more immediate reminder to low-information voters of whom not to vote for, and C) as long as we give a more positive message as well, "Do you really want to go back to the Republican Recession?" is a great secondary theme for the fall campaign.
---
Good luck.

Might as well go with "Bush's War" too.

Well it is fair enough to saddle the mba pwesidwencie with responsibility for its direct one to one relationship with the wholesale destruction of the economic structures it had when they assumed office on a flawed supreme court fiat . What I object to , strenuously , is the failure to underline the many remaining obscenities that passed as policy . Since when has torture been embraced as an All American pastime ? Since boosch cheekie chainy , starting then . When did phony elections become acceptable American behavior ? Since , again , Rehnquist intervened in the activist court policy of the right wing anti American anti democratic rebellion .
Why not just call out the entire duplicitous narrative being imposed on our airwaves for what it is . A reactionary rebellion against the authority of the people by the a few wealthy individuals and their corporate slaves .

"Since when has torture been embraced as an All American pastime ? Since boosch cheekie chainy , starting then ."

And Nancy Pelosi's staffers. Those bastards keep Gitmo open too!

Exactly how is he going to guarantee that people do not go without food and basic services? I do volunteer work here in Arizona and I know people who are doing exactly that -- it's the end of the month, so they're living on crackers and cereal, and no longer getting needed medication because of program cuts. Utility cut-offs a constant threat, and hard to negotiate without phone service. I might note that I speak of perfectly legitimate American citizens, too. Why don't those high muckety-mucks get out in the trenches and see what is going on?

"Why don't those high muckety-mucks get out in the trenches and see what is going on?"

Good luck with that too.

They should have labeled the recession the Bush Recession when they had assumed office.

Veep Sez 8 Million Lost Jobs Don't Matter: "It's not enough."

@jhill
You are so right. I have a dear friend who has been unemployed for over a year and has a serious, life-threatening medical condition, and no health insurance because she lost it when she lost her job. When she applied for MSI, a policy for "indigents," she was denied because she has too much money in her 401(k), although her medical bills would wipe out her 401(k). When she gets down to $2,000 in her bank account, she may qualify. She is fortunate to have family close by, but they cannot pay her bills and her medical expenses. She will probably die because she won't allow herself to be a burden to the "SYSTEM" which has abandoned her and millions of others. Biden is just another corporate mouthpiece.

I am sick of this abuse by the SYSTEM. They are all liars and they are all criminals. I vacillate between compassion and rage, quite a broad range of emotions. Right now, I am in Rage. Maybe I will come back to compassion, but not yet.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

"When she applied for MSI, a policy for "indigents," she was denied because she has too much money in her 401(k), although her medical bills would wipe out her 401(k)."

Problem will be solved by Jim McDermott!

The problem with doing it now, with electoral setbacks looming, is that it looks like you're rolling out a new excuse to cover up your own failure to fix the problem. (I understand why Democrats have been thwarted at every opportunity, but low-information voters decide elections in this country.)

Ironically, the reason they didn't use this phrase from the start was apparently fear that it looked like an excuse. But sowing the seeds for it during the campaign in 2008, let alone 2009, would have been wise.

You can make the case, "It's Bush's recession, but rather than whine let's fix it." It's harder to make that case when basically the voters are stupid enough to forget who caused it, and you haven't been reminding them.

Posted by: st john on July 29, 2010 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

I though the new healthcare plan would take care of this?

Benen: "It is curious, though, why the White House didn't embrace this sooner"

Here is how it went:

Fox News: "Oh, oh, how long are you going to blame Bush for the economy?"

Ideal response: "Well Bush is responsible for the 2007-09 recession, but we are responsible for the 2009 onward sure but slow recovery".

Actual response: "We are not blaming Bush, and are looking forward"

Now they find out that the first response would have been a better one. Better late than never, I hope.

Since the end of World War II, the Democrats and Republicans have held the White House about the same amount of time: 9 full terms for the Rs, and 7 full terms and two years for the Ds. 36 to 30. 6 to 5 ratio.

There have been 11 recessions since the end of WWII. 9 of the 11 started when the Rs controlled the White House.

@? on July 29, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Well, apparently not because I spoke with her last week and she just returned from the hospital, with a bill in excess of $100,000, and no way to pay it. But, Hey, no one in this country will ever go without food, shelter, clothing and medical services, as long as they are a documented resident or citizen. Water is another matter: the U.S. abstained from voting in the UN on a resolution to declare water a human right. Why give it away when we can sell it? After we've stolen it.
On another related note: another friend just returned from Asia/Cambodia & Singapore and she said that we are the laughingstock of the world the way we treat our president and our citizens with disrespect and disdain. Asia is not perfect and has much room to improve, but the Chinese are busy building infrastructure and taking care of their own as well as those in many other countries, while we are worried about extending unemployment but spending billions on fighting 2 or more wars occupation. To quote Elton John: It is a sad, sad situation.

"It is curious, though, why the White House didn't embrace this sooner."

First let me say that like others here I hope the catch phrase well, catches on.

On my point though, I think the reason White House didn't embrace this sort of thing earlier is that so many Democrats are visibly unwilling to actually confront the other party.

Why they are so unwilling is something that progressive voices should be asking the White House and every elected Democrat.

I believe it's because they approve of what the GOP wants to do and can't bring themselves to criticize a like minded person. But the question should be asked, and asked often.

It is curious, though, why the White House didn't embrace this sooner.

Because it wasn't the right time. Now it is.

"We are not going to let you go without food or basic services. That will not happen in this country, in our administration. And secondly, we're creating new jobs that are going to be the kind you can raise your family on."

Sounds great. It's too bad that neither of those statements is true.

Should have done this a long time ago. They also should have referred to TARP as the Bush Bailouts. But it's too late now. Recent polls show that a sizeable group of people think TARP was passed during the Obama administration.

Most are not aware of the fact that the day George strolled out of the White House unemployment stood at right around 8%.

And don't forget the 800 billion dollar bank bailout he signed before leaving. Only 34% of America even knows it was him, and not President Obama who signed the bill.

If my memory serves me right, didn't Obama go to a high school a month ot two ago and encourage the students NOT to blame others for their mistakes but take responsibility for their action? It has been 20 months now since Obama has been in office. Practice what you preach and take responsibility for your actions! Sure, Obama wants credit when something good happens and tries to convince the people that things are looking better, but he is quick to blame the previous administration when reports come back that things are not looking good. What is it Mr. President? Are we moving forward or are we not moving forward? If Obama, the commander-in-chief, would have actually served a day in the military, he would have realized one of the core values of all the branches of the military is accountability and another is integrity.