I was struck reading David Horsey's recounting of conversations with persons praising Obama's inauguration speech that the good feeling stoked by the Messiah's President's words play right into the stereotype Jon Stewart exploited earlier this week:
Note the line from "White House Bureau Chief" Jason Jones when confronted by the similarities between rhetoric presented by both Presidents Bush and Obama:
"...when Obama says this stuff, I don't think he really means it..."
Really, it is a window into the worldview of some on the left that they can revolt so ungraciously when W says something, yet when Mr. Hope-n-Change quoths likewise it is greeted with doe-eyed acceptance.
That can't be healthy.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 24, 2009 05:08 PM | Email ThisUntil the, after the worst president in history, Obama can only go up. Some of his first moves like increasing transparency in government (sorely LACKING with Bush), selecting qualified people (instead of incompetent cronies like Gonzalez and Brownie) and getting right to work (instead of constantly being on vacation) should be welcomed by any real Americans.
The disaster that has been Bush has produced the largest deficits in history along with the worst economic performance (jobs, GDP, stock market) since Hoover.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 24, 2009 05:22 PMsorry, correctnotright, you obviously weren't around for the Jimmy Carter years. You are simply parroting the leftwing slogans. Carter didn't get the boot in 1980 for nothing. Look it up sometime.
Posted by: Michele on January 24, 2009 06:02 PMQualified, competent people! Cream of the crop! Who can't read their own tax returns, and "make a mistake" and not only fail to pay taxes, but fraudulently claim reimbursements for them. Smart folks like that!
Getting right to work, and refusing to talk to the Press when That One goes to the Press room, because well it's not just the right time to talk. We'll put that off for later.
Deficits of $140-$200 billion, that balloon to $400 billion when the Slavery Party assumes control of the budget (which comes from the House, not the President). And now promise trillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future!
Yes, that's the type of people we want! HOPEY CHANGEY TYPE PEOPLE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 24, 2009 06:42 PMWhich party is the Slavery Party again? I can't tell from your inaccurate information and conclusions you reach.
Posted by: BA on January 24, 2009 08:10 PM2007, the deficit was $350 billion. In 2008, it was $410 billion. Oh, and that $370 billion deficit in 2003? Guess who controlled the Senate - Slavers.
You sure you want to push this? Remember, your Marxist Messiah promised "Pay As You Go" for the budget! Now it's trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see...
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 24, 2009 08:24 PMI think your foil headgear isn't tight anymore.
Posted by: BA on January 24, 2009 09:09 PMHope and change!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 24, 2009 09:39 PMPakistanis need to root out Al Qaeda, and it would be nice to get Osama, but they aren't focusing on us. And they don't control the levers of power in the middle east, along with the ability to disrupt oil supplies. So where is our national interest?
I'm just confused. I hope one of the Messiah's followers can explain it to me.
Posted by: janet s on January 24, 2009 10:19 PMOne thing in Bush's defense though; There has been no terrorist attack since 9/11/01. I challenge you to admit that correctnotright...
Posted by: KS on January 24, 2009 11:04 PMOne thing in Bush's defense though; There has been no terrorist attack since 9/11/01 in this country. I challenge you to admit that correctnotright...
Posted by: KS on January 24, 2009 11:05 PMThat's why it's called warrant-less wiretapping under Bush and protecting the country under Obama. Giant deficits, and the spend crazy congress is to be condemned under Bush, and expanded under Obama.
And the media cheerleaders cover it up with outright omission, or the faux humor leftists programming and messaging shows like Stewart and Colbert.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 25, 2009 01:02 AM
And WRT KS @ #10: The comparative public speaking and speech delivery skills of the two Presidents are irrelevant to the key point:
Run the Jon Stewart clip again; and note that the points both Bush and Obama are making are not only the same, they used almost exactly the same words.
Jeff B. @ #11 makes the key strategic observation:
The brazen level of double-standard that is automatically applied by those on the left is (as usual) breath taking.... I'm shocked.... SHOCKED; to see that they would continue to do this.
In any case, we are already starting to see substantive differences between the ''idealism'' of campaigning and the cold, hard realities of governing. It will be more than a little interesting to see what levels of double-standard the far left will reach for; as the new Administration tries to deal with the economic crises, the endless Mideast crises, the Taliban still running around Afghanistan, Pakistan teetering on the edge, Iran enriching uranium as fast as they can, etcetera.
Posted by: Methow Ken on January 25, 2009 07:27 AMSo much for HOPE & CHANGE.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 25, 2009 10:11 AMIf you think it isn't funny, why keep watching?
Posted by: BA on January 25, 2009 11:29 AMI don't, but I do happen to catch it once every year. I only watched it because the video was linked, so I was forced to watch this unfunny tripe.
Seriously, do you find this funny? My goodness, the audience howls at the most unfunny lines. And is Jon Stewart, a 50-year D-list actor who failed at Hollywood, putting his hand to his lips supposed to be funny?
Posted by: Jason on January 25, 2009 11:37 AMDo I find some of the pieces funny? Yes. Everything produced? No.
I've never been forced to watch anything - how's that work?
Posted by: BA on January 25, 2009 12:06 PMSimply put, Jon Stewart is not very funny. I'm sorry if you find a contrary opinion to be so unsettling.
Big Brother Loves You.
Posted by: Jason on January 25, 2009 12:17 PMThey've been out of power for 8 years.
Many of them, already predisposed to despise Bush and Republicans, lapped up every bad rumor and conspiracy theory they could listen to, promulgated by the MSM.
They feel marginalized in that their greatest moral crusade, an event meant to equate them with the great moral crusaders of the 60's (please insert tongue into cheek firmly here) failed. I'm of course talking about stopping the Iraq war.
Add those up with a President who looks and sounds good, and a touch of lowIQitis, and you get Obamamania.
Posted by: SteveM on January 25, 2009 04:45 PMNo one has seen the supposed report - becasue there was none - you have been listening to too many lies on right wing radio.
Shanghai idiot:
Have you ever heard of a Presidential VETO? Why didn't Bush veto any bills that created too large a deficit?
Ohhhh, you mean he submitted budgets to congress that were over budget already? Are you really as ignorant and gullible as you seem?
Question for Dan from Shanghai: How many balanced budget did Bush submit? Can you find them?
Is there any other President in HISTORY with a budget deficit this large ands an economy this bad? At least the economy did OK under Reagan, even if he created the largest deficit in history - at the time.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 25, 2009 09:32 PMWho's the idiot? Do you know where budgets originate? HINT: it's NOT the President!
But remember, your Marxist Messiah pledged "Pay As You Go" for his policy, and now it's trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
$200 billion, $400 billion. That's nothing - That One is bringing trillions!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 25, 2009 10:13 PMThat's what you just said.
Posted by: BA on January 26, 2009 08:07 AMThese record deficits sit firmly at the feet of the Slavery Party. And your party - with That One leading - is promising trillions more to be blown.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 26, 2009 08:53 AMIs there any other President in HISTORY with a budget deficit this large ands an economy this bad?
Yes. Jimmy Carter. President Carter's 1980 budget deficit was $136 billion, for a GDP of $2.8 trillon. The 1980 budget deficit was 5% of the GDP.
The biggest under the GOP - the 2006 budget - was $260 billion (not even double that of President Carter). And the GDP was $13 TRILLION, meaning the decifit was 2% of the GDP.
BIG difference there.
Also, in 1980 unemployment was 8% (it never broached 4.8% in 2006 under the GOP), the prime interest rate ended at 21.5% (yes, twenty one point five percent) compared to 8.25% under the GOP in 2006.
The economy under President Carter and the Slavery Party, back in 1980, was SIGNIFICANTLY worse than it was with GOP control in 2006. Higher unemployment, lower deficits, much lower interest rates.
It's just that your party of lies refused to look at the actual FACTS of the situation.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 26, 2009 09:04 AM1980 budget deficit 1980 (combined) $73.8b, the deficit was 2.7% of GDP - you're OK for 2006 with your numbers - and I'd pick them too if I were you because they'd gotten better at that point compared to the previous couple of years.
I'm comfortable that Bush had NO budget responsibility for his tenure in office as you've already stated.
Maybe our founding fathers should have given President's veto power.
Posted by: BA on January 26, 2009 12:22 PMThe estimated amount Bush policies will cost the taxpayers in new debt and accrued obligations is $10,350,000,000,000.
This absolutely buries any comparisons to either FDRs or LBJs legacy administrative cost burdens.
Posted by: Acid Brain on January 26, 2009 02:36 PMAll we needed was something like a prescription drug benefit added as another government program...
Posted by: BA on January 26, 2009 05:24 PM