Dana Perino nails Obama on the Bush/gop blame game.

She frammed it perfectly during an interview on Hannity tonight. If you want to see it, it'll replay later tonight but i'll give it to you in short form.

Perino: "Imagine if Bush had constantly blamed Clinton for handing him 9/11 because he didnt take out UBL on the occassions he had the chance to. It would have DIVIDED THE COUNTRY not united it the way he did."

Thats a perfect description of what Obama is, A DIVIDER!

While im typing this Romney is giving his acceptance speach in Illinois. He captured this as well in his speach!

Go back and read Reagan's reelection campaign speeches and see how many times he mentioned the "previous administration". He did it in the speech declaring his run for reelection. It's amazing how utterly void people are of political history. The talking heads on both sides know the history but choose to ignore it to draw in viewers. It's sad to watch.
 
Obama has on a number of occasions noted that past US policies contributed to various contemporary economic maladies. In contrast, so far as I recall, Bush minimized the role of US policies in provoking 9/11 (ie, military intervention and supporting dictators) while claiming that the international terrorist group was mainly upset by issues such as whether US women should go veiled.

You're perfectly free to question the various political motivations that led Bush and Obama to craft their respective narratives, but I find Obama's more historically accurate and honest.
 
She frammed it perfectly during an interview on Hannity tonight. If you want to see it, it'll replay later tonight but i'll give it to you in short form.

Perino: "Imagine if Bush had constantly blamed Clinton for handing him 9/11 because he didnt take out UBL on the occassions he had the chance to. It would have DIVIDED THE COUNTRY not united it the way he did."

Thats a perfect description of what Obama is, A DIVIDER!

While im typing this Romney is giving his acceptance speach in Illinois. He captured this as well in his speach!

Go back and read Reagan's reelection campaign speeches and see how many times he mentioned the "previous administration". He did it in the speech declaring his run for reelection. It's amazing how utterly void people are of political history. The talking heads on both sides know the history but choose to ignore it to draw in viewers. It's sad to watch.

And thats perfectly normal DURING AN ELECTION.

So essentially you are saying what weve been saying all along.

OBAMA HAS NEVER STOPPED CAMPAIGNING
 
She frammed it perfectly during an interview on Hannity tonight. If you want to see it, it'll replay later tonight but i'll give it to you in short form.

Perino: "Imagine if Bush had constantly blamed Clinton for handing him 9/11 because he didnt take out UBL on the occassions he had the chance to. It would have DIVIDED THE COUNTRY not united it the way he did."

Thats a perfect description of what Obama is, A DIVIDER!

While im typing this Romney is giving his acceptance speach in Illinois. He captured this as well in his speach!

Go back and read Reagan's reelection campaign speeches and see how many times he mentioned the "previous administration". He did it in the speech declaring his run for reelection. It's amazing how utterly void people are of political history. The talking heads on both sides know the history but choose to ignore it to draw in viewers. It's sad to watch.

And thats perfectly normal DURING AN ELECTION.

So essentially you are saying what weve been saying all along.

OBAMA HAS NEVER STOPPED CAMPAIGNING

Good. Name a president that ever stops campaigning during his first term. Mitch McConnell stated, early in Obama's term, that his goal was to defeat Obama. The playing field was set.
 
When it comes to a discussion on the reasons why the economy went kaboom it is natural to to bring his name up. Too many act as if things were just fine the day before Obama took office, they need constant reminding. GWB had a leading role to play in this tragedy in spite of the constant efforts to make him a bit player or even worse, the hero. Any attempt to rewrite history will be resisted. There will not be a day twenty years from now when his legacy has been scrubbed clean like Reagan.

The problem with this is that by 2008 Obama and the world knew what the next POTUS was getting him(or her lol)self into yet Obama campaigned on knowing how to fix it with specific promises to do just that by this 2012 election. The 2008 election turned on Obama's assuring the nation he understood how to fix the economy while McCain honestly admitted he had no grandiose guarantees. So Obama got elected by convincing us he was capable of improving the nation's economic health within his first term. But by nearly every quantifiable measure the economy has gotten worse since Obama took office. The momentum and possibly even the future outlook may be better today than it was at any point in 2008, but that's not what Obama campaigned on. Had Obama said "Elect me and the economy will at no point over the next four years get better than it is today, but I promise that it will be in position to get better by 2012 so long as you reelect me in 2012!" he wouldn't have been elected and everyone knows that.

We also all know things were not fine when Obama got elected. That's exactly why Obama got elected. But for him to now say he didn't anticipate Bush had done this great a degree of damage means one of two things: he isn't as economically sound as he wanted to think he was in 2008; or he was deliberately lying about what he could do in 2008. Neither option inspires much confidence imo.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Vel
When it comes to a discussion on the reasons why the economy went kaboom it is natural to to bring his name up. Too many act as if things were just fine the day before Obama took office, they need constant reminding. GWB had a leading role to play in this tragedy in spite of the constant efforts to make him a bit player or even worse, the hero. Any attempt to rewrite history will be resisted. There will not be a day twenty years from now when his legacy has been scrubbed clean like Reagan.

The problem with this is that by 2008 Obama and the world knew what the next POTUS was getting him(or her lol)self into yet Obama campaigned on knowing how to fix it with specific promises to do just that by this 2012 election. The 2008 election turned on Obama's assuring the nation he understood how to fix the economy while McCain honestly admitted he had no grandiose guarantees. So Obama got elected by convincing us he was capable of improving the nation's economic health within his first term. But by nearly every quantifiable measure the economy has gotten worse since Obama took office. The momentum and possibly even the future outlook may be better today than it was at any point in 2008, but that's not what Obama campaigned on. Had Obama said "Elect me and the economy will at no point over the next four years get better than it is today, but I promise that it will be in position to get better by 2012 so long as you reelect me in 2012!" he wouldn't have been elected and everyone knows that.

We also all know things were not fine when Obama got elected. That's exactly why Obama got elected. But for him to now say he didn't anticipate Bush had done this great a degree of damage means one of two things: he isn't as economically sound as he wanted to think he was in 2008; or he was deliberately lying about what he could do in 2008. Neither option inspires much confidence imo.

I think he was naive enough to think the republicans would drop the rhetoric at least some of the time and lend a hand, took him three years until the debt ceiling fiasco to figure out that the republicans hate him more than they love the country. He also had no idea that the tea party would become such a problem or that the landscape of campaigning would be radically altered by the CU decision. In short I do not think anyone could have predicted the incredible lengths republicans would go to sabotage even their own ideas.
 
She frammed it perfectly during an interview on Hannity tonight. If you want to see it, it'll replay later tonight but i'll give it to you in short form.

Perino: "Imagine if Bush had constantly blamed Clinton for handing him 9/11 because he didnt take out UBL on the occassions he had the chance to. It would have DIVIDED THE COUNTRY not united it the way he did."

Thats a perfect description of what Obama is, A DIVIDER!

While im typing this Romney is giving his acceptance speach in Illinois. He captured this as well in his speach!

Had Bush blamed Clinton for 90s military interventionism in the ME it would've been harder for him to... militarily intervene in the ME.

Bush certainly succeeded in uniting the nation short term but the long term -- as always -- needs to be considered. So with that said, I'd suggest our ME warfare has had the nation divided since at least the middle of Bush's second term.
 
When it comes to a discussion on the reasons why the economy went kaboom it is natural to to bring his name up. Too many act as if things were just fine the day before Obama took office, they need constant reminding. GWB had a leading role to play in this tragedy in spite of the constant efforts to make him a bit player or even worse, the hero. Any attempt to rewrite history will be resisted. There will not be a day twenty years from now when his legacy has been scrubbed clean like Reagan.

The problem with this is that by 2008 Obama and the world knew what the next POTUS was getting him(or her lol)self into yet Obama campaigned on knowing how to fix it with specific promises to do just that by this 2012 election. The 2008 election turned on Obama's assuring the nation he understood how to fix the economy while McCain honestly admitted he had no grandiose guarantees. So Obama got elected by convincing us he was capable of improving the nation's economic health within his first term. But by nearly every quantifiable measure the economy has gotten worse since Obama took office. The momentum and possibly even the future outlook may be better today than it was at any point in 2008, but that's not what Obama campaigned on. Had Obama said "Elect me and the economy will at no point over the next four years get better than it is today, but I promise that it will be in position to get better by 2012 so long as you reelect me in 2012!" he wouldn't have been elected and everyone knows that.

We also all know things were not fine when Obama got elected. That's exactly why Obama got elected. But for him to now say he didn't anticipate Bush had done this great a degree of damage means one of two things: he isn't as economically sound as he wanted to think he was in 2008; or he was deliberately lying about what he could do in 2008. Neither option inspires much confidence imo.

I think he was naive enough to think the republicans would drop the rhetoric at least some of the time and lend a hand, took him three years until the debt ceiling fiasco to figure out that the republicans hate him more than they love the country. He also had no idea that the tea party would become such a problem or that the landscape of campaigning would be radically altered by the CU decision. In short I do not think anyone could have predicted the incredible lengths republicans would go to sabotage even their own ideas.

To be honest, I agree with this.
 
When it comes to a discussion on the reasons why the economy went kaboom it is natural to to bring his name up. Too many act as if things were just fine the day before Obama took office, they need constant reminding. GWB had a leading role to play in this tragedy in spite of the constant efforts to make him a bit player or even worse, the hero. Any attempt to rewrite history will be resisted. There will not be a day twenty years from now when his legacy has been scrubbed clean like Reagan.

The problem with this is that by 2008 Obama and the world knew what the next POTUS was getting him(or her lol)self into yet Obama campaigned on knowing how to fix it with specific promises to do just that by this 2012 election. The 2008 election turned on Obama's assuring the nation he understood how to fix the economy while McCain honestly admitted he had no grandiose guarantees. So Obama got elected by convincing us he was capable of improving the nation's economic health within his first term. But by nearly every quantifiable measure the economy has gotten worse since Obama took office. The momentum and possibly even the future outlook may be better today than it was at any point in 2008, but that's not what Obama campaigned on. Had Obama said "Elect me and the economy will at no point over the next four years get better than it is today, but I promise that it will be in position to get better by 2012 so long as you reelect me in 2012!" he wouldn't have been elected and everyone knows that.

We also all know things were not fine when Obama got elected. That's exactly why Obama got elected. But for him to now say he didn't anticipate Bush had done this great a degree of damage means one of two things: he isn't as economically sound as he wanted to think he was in 2008; or he was deliberately lying about what he could do in 2008. Neither option inspires much confidence imo.

I think he was naive enough to think the republicans would drop the rhetoric at least some of the time and lend a hand, took him three years until the debt ceiling fiasco to figure out that the republicans hate him more than they love the country. He also had no idea that the tea party would become such a problem or that the landscape of campaigning would be radically altered by the CU decision. In short I do not think anyone could have predicted the incredible lengths republicans would go to sabotage even their own ideas.

Naive enough to think they wouldnt act like he did during Bushs term? Like EVERY opposing congress has acted?

You really think Obama is pretty stupid huh. Yet you will most likely vote for him.
 
The problem with this is that by 2008 Obama and the world knew what the next POTUS was getting him(or her lol)self into yet Obama campaigned on knowing how to fix it with specific promises to do just that by this 2012 election. The 2008 election turned on Obama's assuring the nation he understood how to fix the economy while McCain honestly admitted he had no grandiose guarantees. So Obama got elected by convincing us he was capable of improving the nation's economic health within his first term. But by nearly every quantifiable measure the economy has gotten worse since Obama took office. The momentum and possibly even the future outlook may be better today than it was at any point in 2008, but that's not what Obama campaigned on. Had Obama said "Elect me and the economy will at no point over the next four years get better than it is today, but I promise that it will be in position to get better by 2012 so long as you reelect me in 2012!" he wouldn't have been elected and everyone knows that.

We also all know things were not fine when Obama got elected. That's exactly why Obama got elected. But for him to now say he didn't anticipate Bush had done this great a degree of damage means one of two things: he isn't as economically sound as he wanted to think he was in 2008; or he was deliberately lying about what he could do in 2008. Neither option inspires much confidence imo.

I think he was naive enough to think the republicans would drop the rhetoric at least some of the time and lend a hand, took him three years until the debt ceiling fiasco to figure out that the republicans hate him more than they love the country. He also had no idea that the tea party would become such a problem or that the landscape of campaigning would be radically altered by the CU decision. In short I do not think anyone could have predicted the incredible lengths republicans would go to sabotage even their own ideas.

Naive enough to think they wouldnt act like he did during Bushs term? Like EVERY opposing congress has acted?

You really think Obama is pretty stupid huh. Yet you will most likely vote for him.

No congress has ever turned the debt ceiling into a hostage situation and destroyed the budget process perhaps permanently, that may be the most reckless thing I have ever seen any branch of government do. It's something not even republicans could have dreamed of just a couple of years before.
 
Neocons and Reaganists have ruined the country- W was just the end of the line and the worst. Thanks for the DEPRESSION, mindless dittoheads who think they know all the answers even when they're PROVEN CRAPPE, and the stupidest wars and foreign policy ever! And now the most disfunctional CONGRESS ever. A-hole pubs and their moron dupes, now jumping into the dustbin of history.

Dana's an idiot. But I like her lol.
 
I think he was naive enough to think the republicans would drop the rhetoric at least some of the time and lend a hand, took him three years until the debt ceiling fiasco to figure out that the republicans hate him more than they love the country. He also had no idea that the tea party would become such a problem or that the landscape of campaigning would be radically altered by the CU decision. In short I do not think anyone could have predicted the incredible lengths republicans would go to sabotage even their own ideas.

Naive enough to think they wouldnt act like he did during Bushs term? Like EVERY opposing congress has acted?

You really think Obama is pretty stupid huh. Yet you will most likely vote for him.

No congress has ever turned the debt ceiling into a hostage situation and destroyed the budget process perhaps permanently, that may be the most reckless thing I have ever seen any branch of government do. It's something not even republicans could have dreamed of just a couple of years before.

And Obamas punk assed rhetoric about the GOP sitting in the back and how they are enemies and all the other nonsense he spewed had nothing to do with the reaction he got huh? You guys think the GOP has no choice but to drink the coffee after Obama spits in it. Then you cry about the reaction.
 
So W didn't personally blame Clinton for not capturing Bin Laden.

Does it matter that nearly every other right-winger did?

Were not talking about "other" people. This thread is about a president accepting his job. Many of you seem to forget Obama asked for the job KNOWING FULL WELL what the shape of our country was. He even said he would fix it in three years or it was a one term deal for him. I doubt he ment that either.

Let's not forget that Obama was part of the Dem controlled congress for several years before he got elected. He helped create the mess he inherited.
Bush is blameless, everything he fucked up, which is everything he toughed, is everyone else's fault but his. He was a powerless president, minority members of congress were the real power brokers. :cuckoo:
 
Naive enough to think they wouldnt act like he did during Bushs term? Like EVERY opposing congress has acted?

You really think Obama is pretty stupid huh. Yet you will most likely vote for him.

No congress has ever turned the debt ceiling into a hostage situation and destroyed the budget process perhaps permanently, that may be the most reckless thing I have ever seen any branch of government do. It's something not even republicans could have dreamed of just a couple of years before.

And Obamas punk assed rhetoric about the GOP sitting in the back and how they are enemies and all the other nonsense he spewed had nothing to do with the reaction he got huh? You guys think the GOP has no choice but to drink the coffee after Obama spits in it. Then you cry about the reaction.

Did he hurt their fragile feelings? If they cannot handle being faced with someone using their playbook then perhaps they need to get a different playbook. They are all about offence and act so shocked when they are forced onto the defensive, the fact that they may have to occasionally justify their actions just burns them up. It's a game of hardball yet they are continually trying to take the ball and go home, like spoiled little punks.
 
Bullshit.

Neither of them did.

The right wing media machine did. Period.

Speaking of Bullshit lol
March 22, 2010
RUSH: I'll tell you, I'm going to be very honest. I largely blame myself for this. I do, I'll tell you why I think I'm responsible for this, this partisan divide. It's a good thing, don't misunderstand, but I'm responsible for it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top