do we know who jeffrey jones is? he managed to gain entry to the magical kingdom 8 times.
there are many jeffrey jones’ and it couldn’t possibly be the one who co-founded the weatherman with bill ayers…..
The original post by White House ethics counselor Norm Eisen makes clear, the “William Ayers” and “Jeremiah Wright” on the list are actually different individuals who merely share the same name:
“Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly (”R. Kelly”), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”
Mainstream news outlets have reported this fact accurately. But for you guys the story is simply too good to be fact-checked.
And, of course, Newt Gingrich, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John Boehner, John Roberts, Bill Gates, Billy Graham Jr. and many other dubious people were also on the list. We have no idea who visited the White House while Bush and Cheney were there because they refused to say.
Red 73
16 years ago
Mike, outstanding job. I wonder where our media is on this??????
Neo
16 years ago
Several names stand out among the disclosures. People named Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Michael Jordan all visited the White House since Barack Obama became president, according to the logs.
But Eisen said the Jeremiah Wright who visited is not the controversial Chicago preacher who Obama rebuked during his presidential campaign. The William Ayers who visited is not the former member of the Weathermen, and Michael Jordan was not the NBA great.
I can believe that there are a lot of folks named Michael Jordan. I find it less likely for Jeremiah Wright, and even less likely that another William Ayers would be dropping by.
Even a nation-wide search for “W Ayers” on Yahho People Search only comes up with 191.
Interesting blog you got their Jerry, recognize this:
During the 2008 campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama promised his administration would be more open and transparent than the extremely secretive Bush administration. Yesterday, steps were taken to keep that promise.
and your blog continued to herald Obama’s promise of transparency not once mentioning that he would not fork over the logs until he was sued by CREW:
@Jerry Bowles: Nice try Jer. It’s possible that there are some names that aren’t who we would think they are, but COME ONE! Your claim doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Perhaps this list was prepared by an ACORN volunteer who used their usual method of registering voters and just put down the name of every famous person he or she knows.
I also find it interesting that you include the Rev. Billy Graham Jr. among “many other dubious people.”
Says a lot about you doesn’t it?
Missy
16 years ago
Four visits by George Soros, the Hungarian born billionaire who funds the Democrat Party.
Wonder what that was all about, certainly no good:
the Obama White House mainly follows the expertise of Mr. Daniel Restrepo on issues pertaining to Latin America.
Dan Restrepo and The Center for American Progress
Prior to moving to the National Security Council, Dan Restrepo was the director of the Americas Project at the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank, whose President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then President Bill Clinton. This think tank has become so influential making personnel appointments in the Obama Administration that Time Magazine recently declared “there is no group in Washington with more influence at this moment in history.” [8]
One of CAP’s main contributors is billionaire speculator, George Soros. In fact, some independent groups that are more transparent, such as the Sunlight Foundation and the Campaign Legal Center, criticize the Center’s failure to disclose its contributors, particularly since it is so influential in appointments to the Obama administration.
* Was a member of Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s
* Co-founder of the Weather Underground Organization
* Environmentalist
* Owns consulting firm that helps grassroots leftist organizations promote their agendas and fundraise successfully
* Director of New York State’s chapter of the Apollo Alliance
Jeffrey Carl Jones was born into a Quaker family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in February 1947. In September 1965 he enrolled at Antioch College in Ohio. A month later he joined the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and became active as an anti-war speaker on college campuses. In April 1967 Jones quit school to become the regional office coordinator of New York City’s SDS chapter, a position he held until December 1968.
During his tenure with SDS, Jones became a sworn enemy of the United States government. Believing that America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia was immoral, he sided with the North Vietnamese communists. Formally renouncing the conscientious-objector status that had been conferred on him as a result of his Quaker lineage, he began referring to himself and his ideological comrades as “communist revolutionaries.”
In November 1967 Jones and fellow anti-war radical Cathlyn Platt Wilkerson went on a fact-finding mission to Cambodia, where they had a friendly meeting with representatives from the North Vietnamese embassy and members of the National Liberation Front, the communist army of the Vietcong.
In August 1968 Jones participated in a large-scale protest at the site of the Democratic National Convention, a protest that escalated into rioting on the streets of Chicago. At one point, Jones shouted to his fellow rioters:
“The power belongs to the young people and the black people in this country. We’re going to remake this country in the streets. Don’t get hung up on this fourth party bullsh**. Don’t get hung up on peace candidates. Come on! We gotta fight it out where the only power we can build is. That’s at the base. We gotta build a strong base and someday we gotta knock those motherfu**ers who control this thing right on their ass.”
By mid-June of 1969, Jones, along with Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd, became a leader of SDS’s most militant wing and formed a new radical organization, Weatherman. They issued a Weatherman “manifesto” eschewing nonviolence and calling for armed opposition to U.S. policies; advocating the overthrow of capitalism; exhorting white radicals to trigger a worldwide revolution by fighting in the streets of the “mother country”; and proclaiming that the time had come to launch a race war against the “white” United States on behalf of the non-white Third World.
Jones helped to promote and organize an October 1969 demonstration in Chicago, timed to coincide with two significant events: (a) the trial of the “Chicago Seven” defendants who stood accused of having incited the aforementioned riots of 1968; and (b) the second anniversary of the death of Che Guevara.
“Bring the War Home” was the slogan for this latest Chicago rally. Addressing those in attendance, Jones claimed to be the embodiment of Marion Delgado, a five-year-old Chicano boy who had placed a slab of concrete on a railroad track and derailed a passenger train in California 22 years earlier – a symbol of the immense amount of damage that the small were capable of inflicting on the mighty.
At the end of his talk, Jones exhorted his listeners to take violently to the streets, thereby unleashing the so-called “Days of Rage” which featured rioters (many of them affiliated with Weatherman) smashing windows, damaging cars, and clashing with police. In the 1980s, Jones would reminisce about the Days of Rage:
“The point of [the action] was that if they’re going to continue to attack the Vietnamese and to kill the [Black] Panthers, then we as young white people are going to attack them behind the lines…. That’s why we … smashed up people’s private property … and fought the cops…. The situation was so grave, what the U.S. was doing — this of course was true — that we had to take extreme measures.”
Jones was arrested for his role in the Days of Rage, along with approximately 100 others. He was charged with “crossing state lines to foment a riot and conspiring to do so.” When he he failed to appear for his March 1970 court date, the FBI launched a manhunt to track him down.
Also in March 1970, Jones and Weatherman issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government. For the first time, they used a new name, the “Weather Underground Organization,” adopting fake identities and restricting themselves exclusively to covert activities.
Jones would manage to elude law-enforcement authorities for a decade. After living for more than a year in San Francisco with fellow fugitive Bernardine Dohrn, Jones and Weather Underground comrade Eleanor Raskin relocated to New York’s Catskill Mountain region in 1971; during the years that followed, they would reside variously in New Jersey and the Bronx, New York.
In 1974 Jones co-authored — along with Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Celia Sojourn — the book Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism, whose title was an allusion to Mao Zedong’s observation that “a single spark can start a prairie fire.” This publication contained the following statements:
* “We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men … deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.”
* “Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside.”
* “The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.”
* “Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle.”
* “Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. Without armed struggle there can be no victory.”
* “We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society.”
* “Our job is to tap the discontent seething in many sectors of the population, to find allies everywhere people are hungry or angry, to mobilize poor and working people against imperialism.”
* “Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism / imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit.”
In late October 1981, Jones and Raskin were caught in a police sweep of individuals suspected of having participated in the deadly robbery of an armored truck in Nyack, New York three days earlier. A week before their sentencing in December 1981, Jones and Raskin were married. At sentencing, Jones received probation and community service, while the charges against Raskin were dropped.
Jones thereafter spent ten years as a communications director for Environmental Advocates of New York. He currently heads Jeff Jones Strategies, a consulting firm that specializes in helping grassroots leftist organizations promote their agendas and fundraise successfully. His clients include, among others, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Workforce Development Institute, New Partners for Community Revitalization, the Land Trust Alliance, the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development, the Healthy Schools Network, and the League of Conservation Voters.
Jones also serves as director of New York State’s chapter of the Apollo Alliance, which helped craft portions of the $787 billion “stimulus” legislation that President Barack Obama signed into law in early 2009.
In addition, Jones is a board member of West Harlem Environmental Action; the Mohawk Hudson Land Conservancy; the Healthy Schools Network; the Capital District Chapter of the League of Conservation Voters; and the financial arm of Movement for a Democratic Society, a group that works closely with the newly reconstituted SDS.
A resident of Albany, New York, Jones is a member of Governor David Paterson’s Energy and Environment Transition Commission. He is also affiliated with New York’s Workforce Development Institute, which advises state and local governments and universities on how to write their grants in a manner that is likely to successfully secure funds from the aforementioned stimulus bill.
Jones identifies “climate change and global warming” as his chief environmental concern. He says”
“What bothers me about it is the impact that it will have on people, and the people who are least able to deal with it. We saw this with [Hurricane] Katrina. We know that sea-level rise is going to affect island nations, poor nations like Bangladesh. These are human-rights, social-justice issues that really impact me personally a lot.”
Skookum
16 years ago
Yes people with the same names as radicals are so interesting, we invite them to the White House to chat. It is amazing what you can learn from these not really infamous people, just regular people with the same names as despicable racists and unrepentant terrorists.
Generals and war are so blase and plebeian; we keep those annoying visits to a minimum, to insure our good karma.
As President, why should I devote time to war, I am sooo busy running the world and posing for photo-ops, you saw me saluting the dead heroes, I was so sharp looking, maybe I should get a uniform like Hugo and Fidel.
I certainly wouldn’t believe “not that Jeramiah Wright…William Ayers”, etc unless they identify them as to their affiliation and reason for being there. Then they can be looked up. Wonder if Opfrey got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom? Andy Stern the Communist head of the SEIU, eight times and international currency terrorist, G. Soros, four times. Someone ought to check what happened in the markets in the days/weeks immediately following these visits.
I can certainly believe that those 3 names are not the same people. This fact takes nothing away from the fact that those are the only 3 names, and that there are dozens of other Commie-assbites who have visited their “sort of like” god in the White House.
I don’t put it past them to do a set up by putting those names on the list to evoke an outraged reaction; no do I put it past them to deny that they were there when they actually were; nor do I put it past them to hide names of their co-conspirators from the public…putting a name in on one date, follow it with proof that the person wasn’t there…but he was there on a different day. They are quite fond of Machivelli’s ploys aren’t they? It’s just a game to slip something else by the nose of the press, public, etc. They’re liars and cheats, so what else is new?
@AnnMonterey: There are ways to verify these things. To get permission to enter the White House complex you have to submit your social security number so the Secret Service can run a background check on you to see if you represent a danger. Since so many of Obama’s cohorts rightly belong on a Secret Service watch list the job must be very daunting.
Mark
16 years ago
JimRobinson:
Nobody was “punked” as you assert.
Every name in the Drudge Headline was verified as a registered guest of the White House.
They may, or may not, be the the people we assumed they were, but the headline was neither false or misleading.
disenchanted
16 years ago
I find it amusing the WH states that some of the names are not those of the ‘famous’ people that have the same names. what a crock. It is truly laughable. obama and his communist henchmen couldn’t tell the truth if they were given truth serum (hmmm maybe then).
Wonder who they left off the list? A lot of those listed are people that the general populace made an assertion they visited the WH.
obama is an enemy of the United States and should be investigated – it is only time before he comes up against charges and is impeached.
@Mike’s America: Yeah, Mike. I find it too much a coincidence that these names popped up. I wish there was a way to out the truth. They are pretty diabolical. Do I think Wright was there (regardless of who signed in or when)? Yes, I always believed that he and Ayers would be brought in through the back door. I’m absolutely positive that Oprah has a video of herself being welcomed into the WH. She would never pass that up for her own special documentation of this “historical” black POTUS. Funny how none of the rest of us knew when she had her visit.
Missy
16 years ago
Remember, they only released names that have been requested through FOIA. Are we to believe they released “false positives” in order to comply to a court order? Just curious.
I’d be curious to know who these “nonfamous” alter egos are, who were so privileged to visit the WH.
Incidentally, one of the soldiers who died last year at the Battle of Wanat is Jonathan Ayers, whose father is Bill Ayers. I think I heard the father supporting a desire for a troop increase in Afghanistan on the news.
de stijl
16 years ago
Remember, they only released names that have been requested through FOIA. Are we to believe they released “false positives” in order to comply to a court order? Just curious.
From the original White House press release:
A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly (“R. Kelly”), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.
Since it was made fairly clear in the press release why the false positives were included, I’d say yes.
Does anyone else remember that fake Obama thesis from last week? The one where a bunch of bloggers and radio talk show hosts got punked by a satire?
Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from all this, a so-called teachable moment, if you will.
Maybe you shouldn’t believe everything you read coming from someone with a bad, bad case of confirmation bias.
Patvann
16 years ago
@ de stijl, and every other Obama-fluffer.
Let’s analyze this in a manner consistent with the way engineers like me look at things…
1. The CREW crew filed a FOIA request, stating that they wanted to know who had face-time with the prez. Their pov was that unsavory characters, and those with little to no character, had an inordinate amount of access to him.
Knowing this, the WH dithers and obfuscates for several months (as they are wont to do) and in the end, instead of giving the list of the people who actually received face-time, the WH gives out the list of every Tom Dick and Harry that has ever set foot in the place, including all the people who only asked but never made it in. This included tourists. This list included over one million names. The list also made no difference between “asked to visit” and “actually visited”.
-Jeremiah Wright could have asked, but didn’t show. And the Press release proves my point.
They did this on purpose, so that the “meat” is buried in the cheese and lettuce, and yes they did it for the false positives. This lets them throw the Red Herring out to divert attention from those who CREW wanted to be known. Most of the names have no affiliation listed, so there is no way to prove or NOT prove who was there, unless a narrower FOIA request is filed. If Bill Ayers the terrorist, and Bill Ayers the carpenter both visited, this list would not denote which was which.
2. The sanctimonious attitude of the O-fluffers is nothing short of pathetic. Any person with 2 brain-cell to rub together could assume that Jeremiah Wright, and the others listed were indeed the people everyone knows them to be, without being far off-base.
3. The fact that OweBama has never released anything of himself, works to keep the Red Herring poised and ready to be wielded against all who question Him. All they have to do is be able to show that one or two things are not credible (after they, or their acolytes release what is to be questioned, like a thesis) …and that will work towards getting anyone who questions Him in the future from doing so, even if the question has validity. This is an old political trick that too many people fall for.
To use this as a “teachable moment”, the best thing to do now, is loudly demand he release his school transcripts…all of them, not just the one thesis. I also want how he paid for college, and who paid it. But because of all the waste-of-time focus that’s been on his Birth-Cert, this demand will never be made, even though it has a much larger impact on who he truly is.
The birthers got played, to keep his other records hidden.
The CREW crew got played, to keep his actual visitors hidden.
Both of these “plays” work toward discrediting any future questioners.
@Wordsmith: Well, if it was an offspring of “our” Bill Ayers, the first question I’d ask is which side had he been fighting on? We know “our” Bill wouldn’t fight for the USA and would have fully indoctrinated little Comrades to follow suit.
Otherwise, it must not be fun if your last name is Ayers…people wondering if you are related, etc.
B-Rob
16 years ago
I make three observations:
1) The conservatives inability to take at face value anything Obama says or does says more about them than it does about him.
2) Why not just admit that you jumped the gun, assumed the worst, and got punk’d because of it? In other words, admit the obvious and don’t try to blame the White House, or raise some ridiculous conspiracy theories.
3) Many of the problems with conservatives can be explained by simply knowing a little something about psychology.
You folks, I am afraid, are doing what psychologists call “splitting.” Obama is seen as purely evil/bad/manipulative, such that, from the outside, the “over the top” conservative conclusions from seemingly innocuous incidents looks like you are all nuts. Whether it is the reaction to him taking his wife out to dinner, the visit to Dover, or this . . . there is a constant drumbeat from the right of hysterical melodramatic hyperbole. You folks are, as one blogger observed, turning into “white noise” that moderates are tuning out — kinda like the guy on the street corner who screams, day after day, “The end is near!” No one is listening anymore . . . .
I don’t disagree with your point about “jumping the gun”. However:
You folks, I am afraid, are doing what psychologists call “splitting.” Obama is seen as purely evil/bad/manipulative, such that, from the outside, the “over the top” conservative conclusions from seemingly innocuous incidents looks like you are all nuts. Whether it is the reaction to him taking his wife out to dinner, the visit to Dover, or this . . . there is a constant drumbeat from the right of hysterical melodramatic hyperbole. You folks are, as one blogger observed, turning into “white noise” that moderates are tuning out — kinda like the guy on the street corner who screams, day after day, “The end is near!” No one is listening anymore . . . .
You could just as well replace “Obama” with “Bush” and direct your comment to BDSers at leftwing blogs because what you are accusing us of is not exclusively a “rightwing” thing. Both sides engage in these “over the top conclusions from seemingly innocuous incidents”.
de stijl
16 years ago
de stijl, and every other Obama-fluffer.
Patvann, was one word in my comment pro-Obama? (Disclosure: I did not vote for him.)
I thought I was fairly clear in my point that one should question extraordinary claims based on non-existent or unclear evidence – especially extraordinary claims coming from someone who exhibits a clear ideological bent.
Confirmation bias is rampant in political opinion. Too often folks see what they want to see. This does not necessarily make it so.
You want to analyze this like an engineer? Then why the completely unsupported claims like:
“They did this on purpose, so that the “meat” is buried in the cheese and lettuce, and yes they did it for the false positives.”
“Any person with 2 brain-cell to rub together could assume that Jeremiah Wright, and the others listed were indeed the people everyone knows them to be, without being far off-base.”
And then there’s this ad hominem: “OweBama”.
When you claim the authority of the logical high ground and then go on to raw supposition, emotional appeals, guilt-by-association, etc. you undercut your position.
de stijl
16 years ago
Wordsmith sez:
You could just as well replace “Obama” with “Bush” and direct your comment to BDSers at leftwing blogs because what you are accusing us of is not exclusively a “rightwing” thing. Both sides engage in these “over the top conclusions from seemingly innocuous incidents”.
Absolutely true.
B-Rob
16 years ago
@ Wordsmith, you wrote the following:
“You could just as well replace ‘Obama’ with ‘Bush’ and direct your comment to BDSers at leftwing blogs because what you are accusing us of is not exclusively a ‘rightwing’ thing. Both sides engage in these ‘over the top conclusions from seemingly innocuous incidents’.”
I am not understanding the purpose of changing to subject and trying to universalize the problem. I do not recall anyone on the left, for example, seeing a conspiracy around every corner the way we saw it with this list issue.
In addition, there are a few factual problems with this claim. First, I do not recall, in March 2001, anyone in the media claiming that GWB was starting a fascist takeover of America. Alas, in March 2009, the drumbeat against Obama had already started. I also do not recall anyone doing angry rallies about Bush destroying America in August 2001; but with Obama, by August 2009, you had a major cable network basically doing p.r. for astro-turfed “grassroots” tea-bagger rallies across the country. The nutty “Obama is Hitler” rhetoric, the signs, FEMA concentration camps being boosted on Fox News, etc. And we are not even a year into the administration.
In contrast, the “Bush is a fascist liar” stuff did not start until well after the Iraq invasion, which was March 2003. It really took off after the body bags started coming home and after in became well apparent that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and Saddam had no w.m.d. Of course, due to the Bushies being asleep at the wheel on 9/11, there was some “Bush knew what was happening” talk, too. But that all just goes to show how this is even nuttier: Obama is “Hitler” already — and he has not invaded any other countries, or had a “9/11 is like the Reichstag fire” kind of incident to stoke paranoia. Given that Obama has gotten even more harsh commentary than Bush ever did, including people on the right calling for a coup!
Another difference: I doubt you can name a single Dem office holder who said anything about Bush being Hitler. Compare that to the GOPer birther partyholders, the GOPers pushing the “Mengele-like death panel” b.s., nutty Bachman, etc.
Lastly, I focus on the word “delegitimization”. From the very beginning, there has been an effort to question the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency. The birther theory is too stupid to bother addressing here, but you know what it is about. And yes there was some questions about Bush’s legitimacy too. But remember how Bush took office (a two month long court battle and winning by one electoral vote from the state his brother ran after getting fewer votes than the opponent). Obama, in contrast, simply wiped out his opponent. So to compare the even more intense delegitimization actions against Obama and compare it to the factual underpinings proves my point: this conservative wackiness is WAY DIFFERENT than anything Bush faced, whether in timing, in factual support for the theories, in the support of the political institutions and the media, or in kind.
In conclusion, I have long seen that the right was becoming unhinged. I did not understand WHY the conservative reaction to Obama was so unhinged until I was reminded of the psychology of “splitting”. It all makes sense through that lens, including the idea that Obama intentionally release an overbroad list to make the conservatives look stupid.
I am not understanding the purpose of changing to subject and trying to universalize the problem.
I’m not changing the subject, junior. I’m addressing your comment which expands upon the topic by saying this example of us possibly “jumping the gun” before doing further fact-checking is prevalent by rightwingers gripped by conspiratorial paranoia, hysteria, partisan-hatred, and exaggerations. Should I just let your smear go unaddressed so as not to supposedly “change the subject”?
I do not recall anyone on the left, for example, seeing a conspiracy around every corner the way we saw it with this list issue.
Then you must be a man of the left. Congratulations for being as partisanly blind to the conspiratorial paranoia, hysteria, partisan-hatred, and exaggerated claims that come from your side of the aisle.
In addition, there are a few factual problems with this claim. First, I do not recall, in March 2001, anyone in the media claiming that GWB was starting a fascist takeover of America.
Why are you specifying March?
Outrage began after the November Election. Your side never got over it; only saw what they wanted to see and wanted to claim regarding “stolen election”. This photo taken during President Bush’s inaugural in 2001:
Demonstrators protest against the election results as the inaugural parade passes by Freedom Plaza in Washington, January 20, 2001. Thousands of demonstrators booed the inauguration of President George W. Bush which took place amid the tightest security measures ever. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
So the hysteria on your side began before “King George” was even “anointed” by the Supreme Court.
Alas, in March 2009, the drumbeat against Obama had already started.
Ah….trying to draw apples and bananas comparisons by timelines, eh? What significantly occurred in March that wasn’t already there throughout 2008? My side’s rejection of “The One” occurred long before March.
I also do not recall anyone doing angry rallies about Bush destroying America in August 2001;
Ok, so we gave your guy a head start; but I don’t recall Bush spending in 8 years in office what Obama is going to be spending during his first year. Do you? He is cramming his 8 years into his first.
but with Obama, by August 2009, you had a major cable network basically doing p.r. for astro-turfed “grassroots” tea-bagger rallies across the country.
And you had CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, LATimes, CBS, ABC and the whole rest of the MSM brigade out there carrying his water and IGNORING the vetting of a jr. Senator who spent half his tenure on the campaign trail with zero executive experience, selected as the next savior of the country based upon the messages of hope and change and style and charisma over substance and experience.
Did you ever call to task the NYTimes endangering us by leaking classified information to the public? WaPo? USA Today? CBS and Dan Rather for trying to win 2004 for Kerry? Did you see Bush create an enemy’s list on Rather, CNN, Olbermann, Matthews?
What right is it of the presidency to declare what constitutes a news organization and to declare war against FOX while dithering over war in Afghanistan?
Did the MSM do its job prior to 2009? If you’re as open-minded as you believe you are, then I dare you to click and read the following:
The nutty “Obama is Hitler” rhetoric, the signs, FEMA concentration camps being boosted on Fox News, etc. And we are not even a year into the administration.
The Obama Administration and Pelosified Congress is moving fast and furious…because they know they only have a small window of opportunity before 2010 to effect RADICAL change. So, should we take it slow in our critique? Be caught sleeping? Not pay attention? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!
In contrast, the “Bush is a fascist liar” stuff did not start until well after the Iraq invasion, which was March 2003.
Again: Apples and broccoli. Events in 2001 are different from where the country is in 2009. This is like saying criticism and praise of every president within the first year should be equivalent; neglecting the issues each faced at the time.
There were opinion polls that showed favor to Bush, as Americans would naturally rally around a leader to show solidarity in wartime. However, your side was never fully on board and began whining even before Afghanistan was invaded; Democrats who had a hand in anti-Saddam statements, warning about wmd (Democrats, not Bush, said Iraq’s threat was imminent), and voted for war, almost immediately reneged on and disowned their prior warmongering rhetoric when it became politically convenient for them to do so.
It really took off after the body bags started coming home and after in became well apparent that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and Saddam had no w.m.d.
Dude…tell me where Bush EVER said Saddam had anything to do with the events of 9/11. You totally misunderstand the decision for removing him and the rationale for the GWoT if this is what you’re stuck with.
And saying Saddam had “no wmd” ignores the totality of the justifications for war. The burden of proof was on Saddam, btw, and he never provided full confidence that he was clean of wmd. His fault, not Bush’s.
Of course, due to the Bushies being asleep at the wheel on 9/11,
And if “the Bushies” were asleep, then what were the Clintonistas for the previous 8 years? You know….during the years when al Qaeda was metastizing and the machinations for the events of 9/11 were being planned out?
there was some “Bush knew what was happening” talk, too.
Uh….yeah….and we’re the ones that are talking like hysterics and conspiracy artistes? Thanks for that.
There was no actionable intell. Sorry.
But that all just goes to show how this is even nuttier: Obama is “Hitler” already — and he has not invaded any other countries, or had a “9/11 is like the Reichstag fire” kind of incident to stoke paranoia. Given that Obama has gotten even more harsh commentary than Bush ever did, including people on the right calling for a coup!
Obama’s doing a lot to earn his criticism. I don’t agree with birthers, so don’t lump me in there. Not all wingnuts are created equal. But pay attention! Obama’s team is not letting a good crisis go to waste. At the beginning of 2001, we were not living in crisis mode. These are drastic times, and Obama is taking drastic measures to remake America. I’m not going to wait until March of 2011 to begin my protest.
Another difference: I doubt you can name a single Dem office holder who said anything about Bush being Hitler.
Can you name me a GOP one who has compared Obama to Hitler?
Reid called Bush a loser and liar.
Gore screaming at the top of his lungs…and himself playing on our fears.
McKinney in with the Truthers….Howard Dean entertaining the same conspiracies when he was still a viable candidate for the Dems…
Compare that to the GOPer birther partyholders, the GOPers pushing the “Mengele-like death panel” b.s., nutty Bachman, etc.
Lastly, I focus on the word “delegitimization”. From the very beginning, there has been an effort to question the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency. The birther theory is too stupid to bother addressing here, but you know what it is about.
And it is your side that attempts to brand all opposition to Obama as “birthers” and “racists”. It is an attempt to marginalize legitimate opposition and criticism. To ridicule. Read Alinsky?
Its Obama acolytes seek to demonize opponents of Obama’s policies by focusing on most marginal corners of right-wing politics like, for example, the “birthers” who deny Obama is a natural born citizen. The larger scheme is to imply Obama critics are racists.
Read the entire thing. Can I criticize 9/11 Troothers as racists, too, based upon the reasoning your side uses? How is Joe Wilson’s inappropriate breaking of decorum a sign of racism? That’s a huge leap and only incites and divides, crying fire where none exists.
And yes there was some questions about Bush’s legitimacy too. But remember how Bush took office (a two month long court battle and winning by one electoral vote from the state his brother ran after getting fewer votes than the opponent).
*Yawn*…..You’re only proving my argument that BOTH SIDES engage in the nuttery. You’re doing it right now!
President Bush’s win is legitimate.
Obama, in contrast, simply wiped out his opponent. So to compare the even more intense delegitimization actions against Obama and compare it to the factual underpinings proves my point: this conservative wackiness is WAY DIFFERENT than anything Bush faced, whether in timing, in factual support for the theories, in the support of the political institutions and the media, or in kind.
You’ve proved nothing of the kind! I agree Obama won. I don’t question his legitimacy. Some do, but okay.
But if you’re trying to say that opposition and hatred of Obama is greater than it ever was for Bush, GET REAL! Just google Bush under various topics and what comes up? Mostly hate smear and ridicule. Try that with Mr. Popularity.
In conclusion, I have long seen that the right was becoming unhinged. I did not understand WHY the conservative reaction to Obama was so unhinged until I was reminded of the psychology of “splitting”. It all makes sense through that lens, including the idea that Obama intentionally release an overbroad list to make the conservatives look stupid.
What floors me, is your inability to see that BOTH SIDES do this. It’s because you are as partisan as I, yet refuse to admit it. I don’t think you’re lying to me. I think you’re just blinded by your own perception and perspective as a supporter of Obama and an opponent of Bush.
Thanks Wordsmith. I was present at Bush’s first inaugural and saw that Bush hate firsthand. Mostly by idiot post-teens who knew every four letter word but “work” and “soap.”
Clearly, B-Rob has his blinders on. And before I listen to his admonishment of the folks on our side I’d want to hear how he applied the same rules to his own.
I mean, c’mon….they ridiculed his preference in how he says “nuclear” for crying out loud! They said he exercised way too much to the point of “scary obsession”. They hated the way he walked. Damned no matter what he did.
Yet somehow I’m to believe the Democrats are pure and noble and fair-minded and evenhanded, and rational, and free-thinkers, and open-minded, and balanced, and blah blah blah….?
Give me a break!
B-Rob
16 years ago
Wordsmith and Mike’s America —
A little background: I like many sane Americans, voted for Bush in 2000. He proved, of course, to be a disaster, so by 2004, I had wised up and voted Kerry. McCain is the reason I registered R. in 2000 and have maintained that party status here in the great state of Ohio ever since. But when McCain listed as his VP candidate a woman who could barely graduate from a series of third rate universities and who could not name a single newspaper she read on a regular basis, my Obama vote was sealed. You can call me a “leftist” if you want; but any analysis of my actual voting patterns, beliefs, etc. would peg me somewhere in the “Maine Republican” range. To wingnuts, that is considered a raging socialist; normal people would call me a moderate.
On to the subject at hand: Obama. See you folks tried to do what my 13 year old would never get away with: using someone else’s hideous conduct to excuse your own. Only in this case, you are excusing the bizarre conspiracy theories of the right today by comparing them to the weird but not quite as bizarre theories of the past. You cannot actually explain why today’s conduct is sane; you just want to compare it to other insane conduct.
Bullet points:
9/11 — there is no controversy to say the Bushies were asleep at the wheel. Read any chronology about the first nine months of the Bush admin and it is obvious. And here is another simple exercise. Get the Dems 2000 platform and see what it says about al Queda. Read it. You don’t have to even bother getting the GOPs 2000 platform for comparison because the GOP platform DOES NOT MENTION ISLAMIC TERROR AT ALL! I point out 9/11 to explain why people had a factual basis to question Bushie competence and mendacity: 3000 people died on his watch in the worst single terrorist act in world history. It is obvious that the Bushies did not do anything about al Queda prior to 9/11/01; but then you try to deflect blame back to the guy who tried to do something and failed two years before that, the guy who was NOT IN OFFICE when the towers fell! Real good effort at “the buck stops over there”. But you cannot get past the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, not Clinton’s.
Iraq — you can say “actionable intelligence” all you want. But the fact remains that we invaded, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and created an al Queda training cam writ large . . . over non-existent weapons of mass destruction. If you cons would simply admit Iraq was a bad idea executed poorly, I would give you some credit. But just like the Katrina response, it showed that conservatives are best skilled at pontificating and piss poor at execution. But my larger point: libs had an expensive deadly ground invasion of a foreign country to point to as a reason for believing Bush was a megalomaniacal liar. You people pronounce Obama “Hitler” based on . . . what? The federal investment in the domestic auto industry? Do you see why one is not like the other in the Hitler comparison? And do you see why the “Obama is Hitler” stuff is a mark of insanity on the right?
I see you never bothered to even address the tea baggers, the FEMA concentration camps, the death panels, the “Obama is a communist”, “I want my country back”, etc. But most obviously, you didn’t even address the original subject of this post, which is con nuttiness gone wild such that you people see conspiracy theories and White House manipulation around every corner. WH releases a list and TELLS YOU it is can be misleading . . . yet you make fools of yourself anyway and refuse to acknowledge your own error. Like I said, among fellow conservatives, I am sure the death panels, the idea of Rev. Wright (who almost cost Obama the presidency) making late night visits to the WH, William Ayers sitting in on the Department of Homeland Security briefings . . . this all makes sense to you people. But to normal people, you all look like the guy downtown with the signs warning of the coming apocalypse. You are being chuckled at and tuned out, cons. And to quote Pat Buchanan on The McLaughlin Group, responding to the commentators laughing while observing clips of a gay pride parade circa 1993: “When you are a source of mirth and derision, you have serious political problems.”
Davey
16 years ago
Is that the same Jeffery Jones who player Principle Rooney in Ferris Bueler’s Day Off?
A little background: I like many sane Americans, voted for Bush in 2000. He proved, of course, to be a disaster, so by 2004, I had wised up and voted Kerry. McCain is the reason I registered R. in 2000 and have maintained that party status here in the great state of Ohio ever since. But when McCain listed as his VP candidate a woman who could barely graduate from a series of third rate universities and who could not name a single newspaper she read on a regular basis, my Obama vote was sealed. You can call me a “leftist” if you want; but any analysis of my actual voting patterns, beliefs, etc. would peg me somewhere in the “Maine Republican” range. To wingnuts, that is considered a raging socialist; normal people would call me a moderate.
Thanks for the resume. I wondered if this were the case. However, I’d say more like a “Chuck Hagel” Republican at best; “Specter” or “Scozzofava Republican” at worst.
Certainly not a conservative. You just touted the liberal perception of Palin. How am I to take your Republican credentials serious, other than as a wishy-washy Republican who was never a conservative Republican? Saying you were on board with McCain before Palin does you no credibility favors on that front.
I don’t consider you a raging socialist. Raging moderate indoctrinated with MSM distortions? Certainly.
On to the subject at hand: Obama. See you folks tried to do what my 13 year old would never get away with: using someone else’s hideous conduct to excuse your own. Only in this case, you are excusing the bizarre conspiracy theories of the right today by comparing them to the weird but not quite as bizarre theories of the past. You cannot actually explain why today’s conduct is sane; you just want to compare it to other insane conduct.
There you go again! What you’re trying to peg on “the right”, “the left” is just as guilty of doing. I say both sides do it because it is a “human thing” and not a “left/right” thing. Get it? You say it’s exclusive only on the right and your side (yes, YOUR SIDE) is innocent of the same. Again, you’ve willingly put blinders on due to partisan alliance to the liberal left.
Bullet points:
9/11 — there is no controversy to say the Bushies were asleep at the wheel. Read any chronology about the first nine months of the Bush admin and it is obvious. And here is another simple exercise. Get the Dems 2000 platform and see what it says about al Queda. Read it. You don’t have to even bother getting the GOPs 2000 platform for comparison because the GOP platform DOES NOT MENTION ISLAMIC TERROR AT ALL! I point out 9/11 to explain why people had a factual basis to question Bushie competence and mendacity: 3000 people died on his watch in the worst single terrorist act in world history. It is obvious that the Bushies did not do anything about al Queda prior to 9/11/01; but then you try to deflect blame back to the guy who tried to do something and failed two years before that, the guy who was NOT IN OFFICE when the towers fell! Real good effort at “the buck stops over there”. But you cannot get past the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, not Clinton’s.
Sorry, bub. Your bullet point is a misfire. Why would I deny that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch? Why would you excuse Clinton, yet blame Bush? I for one don’t blame Clinton for 9/11; but will use things he failed to do in the previous 8 years that you accuse Bush of failing to do just 9 months into office, with some of his political appointments still not in key positions due to the 2000 election results and partisanship on the part of Senator Levin and others; for nearly 7 months, confirmation hearings for Feith and a couple of other top advisors for Rumsfeld wre held up. The incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their jobs.
By your logic, do you give credit to President Bush for keeping America safe for the succeeding years to the end of his term?
Iraq — you can say “actionable intelligence” all you want. But the fact remains that we invaded, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and created an al Queda training cam writ large . . . over non-existent weapons of mass destruction. If you cons would simply admit Iraq was a bad idea executed poorly, I would give you some credit.
I give you zero credit on this one. “actionable intelligence” was a reference to your charge of Bushies being asleep at the wheel on 9/11, there was some “Bush knew what was happening” talk, too. Please pay attention to what you write, and stay focused. There was nothing in the PDB that would have averted 9/11.
To suggest that an Al Gore presidency would have been awake at the wheel due to a line in the DNC platform? Really now? The same party that gutted the CIA in the 90’s would have turned over a new leaf in the new millennium and gotten the CIA and the FBI to communicate better in the first 9 months of a Gore presidency to avert disaster? Excuse me?!?!
There are good arguments for not invading Iraq when we did. Yours are not one of these; just hindsight distortions and obfuscating.
The majority of the rhetoric used to push for war didn’t claim Saddam had wmd- yes, some statements said such, based upon the intell the Administration was being given- but the vast majority of rhetoric was “we don’t know- and hence, the problem”. Saddam spent the previous decade in defiance and deception; and regime change became official U.S. policy under Clinton, because of it. The dangers of Saddam didn’t magically just get fabricated under Bush in 2 years time. The burden of proof that he had disarmed was upon Saddam. He did not provide that confidence, despite having 12 years and 17 UN Resolutions to do so. In a post-9/11 world, enough was enough. He made no secrets about his love of wmd acquisition; and was an open state-sponsor of exported terrorism. The administration wasn’t seeking retribution for 9/11. It was seeking to prevent the next possible terror attack by pre-empting the possible merger between Saddam feeding wmd to terrorists used as proxies.
The fact that wmd STOCKPILES were not discovered is disturbing; but doesn’t change my mind one iota that the decision made based upon what we knew at the time, had the logical conclusion that Saddam was hiding something and that he was a threat to global peace.
Saddam retained capability and intent. And nothing in his behavior indicated otherwise. Why not be happy he’s been removed from the world? If he were alive today, you’d probably be bitching about how Bush ignored NK, Iran, AND Saddam, while focusing narrowly on Afghanistan.
But just like the Katrina response, it showed that conservatives are best skilled at pontificating and piss poor at execution.
Dude…look at the State and local responses to Katrina- Democratic hands. You honestly think FEMA would have managed things any differently under some other leadership hands? What is the president? A micro-manager?
What would have been different had it been any one other than Bush?
But my larger point: libs had an expensive deadly ground invasion of a foreign country to point to as a reason for believing Bush was a megalomaniacal liar.
Please tell me where “Bush lied”. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!!!! I’m begging you.
You people pronounce Obama “Hitler” based on . . . what? The federal investment in the domestic auto industry? Do you see why one is not like the other in the Hitler comparison? And do you see why the “Obama is Hitler” stuff is a mark of insanity on the right?
Heh….”you people”. So blind it’s unbelievable! Why don’t you get back to me on the Bushitler Chimp-in-Chief comparisons before you force me to defend views I don’t share?
The problem with any comparisons to Hitler or referencing Mein Kampf, is that the “logical” arguments that are trying to be put forth gets lost in the inflammatory nature of such comparisons. The comparisons certainly aren’t about rounding up Republicans and putting them into extermination camps. But why not ask those making such comparisons, hmmm? And don’t forget to ask those on your side why the comparisons of Bush to Hitler, while you’re at it.
Oh, wait…that’s right. I forgot: Your side would never engage in such despicable comparisons. I’m sorry.
Btw, isn’t it some on your side who are drawing the Hitler-Obama comparison, themselves? Not right-wingers? I’m too lazy to do the research for you. But I’m sure I’ve seen that come up a couple of times.
I see you never bothered to even address the tea baggers, the FEMA concentration camps, the death panels, the “Obama is a communist”, “I want my country back”, etc.
Heh…That’s like me cryin’ that you didn’t address my video embed; or failed to show me where Bush said Saddam had a hand in 9/11.
What do you want me to say? How much time should I devote to indulging you with? Did you even bother to read my links? Watch the embedded video?
Why don’t you do yourself and I a favor and go through the categories where these things have been discussed ad nauseam, and knock yourself out.
But most obviously, you didn’t even address the original subject of this post, which is con nuttiness gone wild such that you people see conspiracy theories and White House manipulation around every corner. WH releases a list and TELLS YOU it is can be misleading . . . yet you make fools of yourself anyway and refuse to acknowledge your own error.
Do you always talk past people this way? I guess it’s easier to simply lump me in with your vision of a stereotypical, generic right-winger.
Based upon what was known at the time, we reported as we did. We jumped the gun. Facts that came out later weren’t available at the time. I’d say it’s a logical jump to assume “William Ayers” and “Jeremiah Wright” were the “famous” ones. The stretch would have been to assume otherwise. But yeah, if we got it wrong, on behalf of right-wingers on all four corners of the country, I, wordsmith of nantucket and FA fame, do hereby offer a formal apology to B-Rob, the moderate Republican who is ambassador of the pinko-commie-marxist liberal moonbat left.
Like I said, among fellow conservatives, I am sure the death panels, the idea of Rev. Wright (who almost cost Obama the presidency) making late night visits to the WH, William Ayers sitting in on the Department of Homeland Security briefings . . . this all makes sense to you people.
Yeah, we conservatives talk in tongues and hold seances while teabaggers read the conspiracies in their tea leaves and feed us our GOP talking points. You wouldn’t understand, you being a fake Republican and all, by your own admission. Otherwise, you’d understand our nutroot lingo.
But to normal people, you all look like the guy downtown with the signs warning of the coming apocalypse. You are being chuckled at and tuned out, cons. And to quote Pat Buchanan on The McLaughlin Group, responding to the commentators laughing while observing clips of a gay pride parade circa 1993: “When you are a source of mirth and derision, you have serious political problems.”
Thanks. Must be why Obama’s trending badly in the recent pollings, and America is tilting conservative.
@B-Rob: You thought a man whose only experience was as a community organizer more worthy of your vote than John McCain the man who inspired you to register as a Republican?
Wow!
And you expect me to take you seriously?
I’ll leave that to Wordsmith. He has a higher tolerance level than I do>
Having been inspired by a great patriot and financial watchdog like McCain I would think you would be saddened and embarrassed by your vote for Obama.
But instead you want to come here and defend the man by attacking those on the right who have a genuine concern about the direction this country is taking.
I want my country back too and I won’t tolerate having my principles denigrated by someone who apparently doesn’t have any of his own.
The birther theory is too stupid to bother addressing here, but you know what it is about.
Oh no, not too stupid, let’s address it right now.
May I remind our new friend that the birther movement originated during the dem primaries, both the far right and the far left have been involved in this. Democrats got the jump start but this has since been labled, unfairly as a Republican movement when in fact, repubs, dems and independents are all in it up to their eye-balls IMHO in equal parts.
Philip Berg, a die hard liberal democratic attorney of over 30 years, staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton filed one of the first cases.
So it is at this time that B-Rob might offer to take responsibility and apologize for his sides portion of the birther movement. Curt, owner of this blog has in the past banned people for bringing this up, something he has seen as nonsense. Let’s see what you got, B-Rob.
Curt, owner of this blog has in the past banned people for bringing this up, something he has seen as nonsense.
The birther visitor wasn’t banned, just asked to quit posting about it over and over and over again. I don’t think the birth certificate issue is complete nonsense…kinda non-committal about it either way. Why he just doesn’t release the real thing is curious but I think we have much more to worry about, and work to fix, then the birther deal but occasional comments about the issue is no big deal to me. Just no obsessive stuff.
Hard Right
16 years ago
Whwn he said he “wised up” and voted for kerry, I knew anything else he typed would be a waste of time.
BTW there genius, if Bush was a disaster then obama is the apocalypse by your standards, right?
Why is it that every time a lefty, in your case a RINO, wants to make a point they accuse conservatives of having ‘insane conspiracy theories’ or being paranoid?
Suppose that while you were deciding to register as a Republican, George W. Bush said that within the first three months of his administration he would:
(Notice I did not say BECOME a Republican)
1) Take control of the mortgage and banking industries.
2) Have the government become the largest shareholder of the Big Three automakers, appoint top executives, and executive compensation would be determined by the government.
3) Appoint more than 30 top assistants (czars) without congressional approval, and are accountable only to the president.
4) Have the Justice Department order FBI agents to Miranda detainees captured on the battlefield in a foreign country.
5) Travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi King, and then continually apologize for past US actions.
6) Introduce a “Fairness Doctrine” that would diminish the First Amendment rights of anyone who disagrees with his policies.
7) Get the leaders of congress to introduce legislation that would destroy States Rights guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment, and control energy production, health care, and the wealth of all Americans.
How would you react????????????????????? All of this, and more, have come to pass under the Obama administration.
Paranoid?? Not about the man that said: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
A man who, while talking about veteran’s healthcare, said armed forces members should self-insure because “they knew what they were getting into.” (Remember this every time you see the photo of him at Dover AFB)
In 2008 he said we should judge him by those he surrounds himself with. Consider these:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu who said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” which at the time were around eight dollars a gallon.
Department of Interior head, Senator Ken Salazar who as senator opposed leasing on federal lands and blocked development of oil shale, and now heads the department that oversees energy leasing.
Science Adviser John Holdren, claimed that global warming would kill one billion people by 2020, but in the 1970s was worried about a planet freeze. He has also advocated for a “massive campaign … to de-develop the United States.
Top assistant on energy and climate policy is former EPA administrator Carol Browner who, not too long ago, was listed as a member of Socialist International and a member of its Commission For a Sustainable World Society.
Just because I am paranoid does not mean there is reason not to be paranoid.
This is not ‘insane conspiracy’ it is fact. Call me crazy – but I’m scared to death.
You on the other hand have your head stuck where the sun never shines.
Sorry Curt, I remember you getting frustrated about that topic and thought there was a banning. My memory is not something I should ever, ever count on, should have tried to look it up. Thanks for setting things straight! Agree that it’s curious that he doesn’t straighten it up and be done with it. I think he likes to lay traps no matter how expensive, it’s only money, why in the world would anyone care about that.
Here I go again, relying on memory….hasn’t Mata schooled people many times about not venturing into this mess?
Hard Right
16 years ago
BS-rob, click the links. You might learn something about yourself.
Er, sorry, son. I do not fall into the BDS catagory. I just think he was a bad president who (1) botched Afghanistan by not sending enough troops*; (2) stupidly invaded Iraq (again, without enough soldiers), which created a grand al Queda training group in an oil rich Persian Gulf state; (3) took a balanced budget and drove it into $400 billion a year deficits (before the deluge hit in 2008) draining funds on the aforesaid war in Iraq and rather than pay with taxes, borrowed the money from the Communist Chinese; (4) backed a drug bill we could not afford and expanded the entitlement programs; (5) did nothing to address our technological competitiveness issues [like strong immigration reform so smart foreign students do not have to leave our country, visa reform to make it easier for smart foreigners to move here and do business here, industrial policy, the dollar, tarriffs, etc.]; and (6) last but not least, Bush was asleep at the switch on 9/11.**
What I think he did right? The 9/11 response in waging war on Afghanistan. About nothing more than that. The reason I voted for him and not Gore was because Gore struck me as not having any new ideas. I thought Bush would be a good president, but I was wrong. He ended up being about as bad as Carter.
Why do I say this? Because I measure a president by one question: “Has he been successful in maintaining the military, political, economic, and technological superiority of the United States of America?” On this scale, and looking back 60 years or so, I would rank Roosevelt, Reagan and Clinton on the superior scale.
Truman, Kennedy, Eisenhower were very good.
Nixon, Ford, and George H.W. Bush were successful, overall.
Carter and Bush were utter unmitigated failures.
I sometimes say “What if” about Bush. What if he actually cut spending as he cut taxes, instead of the b.s. “dynamic scoring” fiction he sold to push through tax cuts while increasing spending? What if he decided to reform Social Security by tweaking the retirement age, reducing “crazy money” and investing the Social Security surplus in a decent international blend investment fund, instead of proposing divying it up into several hundred million teeny tiny personal accounts . . . which makes no sense cost-wise? What if he decided to hold off on Iraq and let the inspectors from the IAEA do their job, then trusted in their analysis? What if he just said “no” on expanding entitlements?
If he had done these things, he would be on Mount Rushmore. Instead, he did not even get a prime time speaking position at the GOP convention this summer, did he?
* Hence the irony that cons are saying now Obama needs to act RIGHT NOW to fix the eight year old mess he was handed just this year.
** The efforts to blame Bill Clinton are ahistoric and laughable. Like the birthers, not really worth getting into here once you mention “Osama bin Laden is determined to strike in the United States” and do NOTHING in response.
@b-rob: I was at Bush’s inauguration in January of 2001 and guess what? There were protesters lining the streets screaming that he was a fascist among other names.
As per your “birther” comments, where was your support for McCain when the Dems were attacking his status as a natural born citizen because his family was stationed overseas at the time of his birth? Do you call those people “birthers”?
When you used the word “teabaggers” every other thing you said melted into an unintelligible puddle.
B-Rob
16 years ago
@ Red 73 —
Much to respond to, so here goes in a short burst response:
“1) Take control of the mortgage and banking industries.”
You were against this, I take it? OK. But first get your facst straight. The Bush administration, not Obama, started the financial sector bailouts. And what Obama and Bush did was very similar to what was done in Europe, too: stabilize today instead of risking a financial catastrop-he. What would you have rather he and Bush had done? Let AIG drag down Citi, which drags down everyone else? Not smart at all.
“2) Have the government become the largest shareholder of the Big Three automakers, appoint top executives, and executive compensation would be determined by the government.”
Again, what would you have done? let Chrysler and GM go under and throw several thousand car dealerships, auto parts manufacturers, and other related companies goe belly up in an atmosphere where you alreayd have a banking crisis . . . which, of course, you would also have let just shut down, right?
“3) Appoint more than 30 top assistants (czars) without congressional approval, and are accountable only to the president.”
Uh, huh . . . and I hopre you were protesting when Nixon invented czars, right? And when Bush II greatly expanded the number and responsibilities of them? If you were silent then, it seems to me you are not REALLY all that put off about czars, just czars who are picked by a non-conservative. In which case all I can say is: scoreboard. You don’t want liberal czars? Then next time beat the most liberal senator when he runs for president!
“4) Have the Justice Department order FBI agents to Miranda detainees captured on the battlefield in a foreign country.”
I can tell by this that you know nothing at all about the legal issues relating to detainees, the Geneva Convention, torture, etc. Read “The Dark Side” by Jane Mayer (which explains the ethical and EFFECTIVE INTELLIGENCE PROBLEMS created when you start with bogus legal opinions then create an unlawful torture regime, the torture people until they tell you anything that comes to their tortured mind). Once you have read it, get back to me.
“5) Travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi King, and then continually apologize for past US actions.”
Uh huh . . . and this hurt us HOW? Last I checked, if you f something up, it is better to admit it, repair it, then move on. You don’t continue to do the same f’ed up thing because you don’t want to admit you f’ed up. That’s just retarded!
“6) Introduce a “Fairness Doctrine” that would diminish the First Amendment rights of anyone who disagrees with his policies.”
HA HA HA HA HA! Real funny. OK, I’ll bite. Please give me the US Code section or the Code of Federal Regulations cites for this supposed new “fairness doctrine”. While you are at it, hand me the knife that was used to stab JFK to death, while you are at it. They can both be found in the same place — Rush Limbaugh’s drug addled brain.
“7) Get the leaders of congress to introduce legislation that would destroy States Rights guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment, and control energy production, health care, and the wealth of all Americans.”
Seems to me that if you what a more “state’s rights” approach, you should win the next election. When and if the Dems pass statutes that are unconstitutional, I am sure you will win in court. But to claim “Tenth Amendment” as if that answers any question shows an ignorance of the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection clause, etc. Indeed, most of the people who proclaim the Tenth Amendment don’t even acknowledge the Ninth Amendment, which I find even more interesting.
B-Rob
16 years ago
@ Wisdom —
Please name an elected Dem who said anything about McCain’s birth. Once you can identify one, then the lunacy of the birthers can be compared.
Glenn Beck called the newly elected president of the United States a “racist”. And you cons sat there and nodded your heads. An entire cable news network — not nuts in the streets, but a network — called a man elected with close to 70 million votes, who dominated the map, a fascist, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Ill, etc. And you compare that to Cindy Sheehan and a couple anarchists?
As for tea baggers . . . no one called them that UNTIL THEY STARTED IN WITH THE TEA BAGS! They were throwing tea bags, mailing tea bags to congressmen. So why would they be suprised if people called them “tea baggers”? Do you not even remember what happened?
Face it son — the conservative movement, to paraphrase Ozzie Osbourne, is going off the rails in a crazy train. William F. Buckley is turning in his grave.
Red 73
16 years ago
B-Rob
Thank you for taking the time to respond and confirm where your head is firmly planted.
@B-Rob: So let me get this straight — the lawsuit filed challenging McCain’s eligibility to run for president would only have mattered if ELECTED Dems had questioned McCain’s citizenship? The fact that it was a “respectable” rag like the New York Times who ran with the story questioning his eligibility apparently makes no difference at all. But, someone on an opinion/editorial TV show on FOX News, which “isn’t real news” anyway, says something against the anointed one and it means that everyone right of center is “unhinged”?
I THINK I UNDERSTAND! Right winger bashes a lib…BAD!!!Left winger bashes a conservative…WHOOHOO!!!!!! Thanks for explaining it to me so clearly!
Face it “Dad”, you don’t have the slightest idea what conservatism is, and throwing out Buckley’s name doesn’t give you the slightest bit of credibility.
do we know who jeffrey jones is? he managed to gain entry to the magical kingdom 8 times.
there are many jeffrey jones’ and it couldn’t possibly be the one who co-founded the weatherman with bill ayers…..
And Angela Davis and Jeremiah Wright….
The original post by White House ethics counselor Norm Eisen makes clear, the “William Ayers” and “Jeremiah Wright” on the list are actually different individuals who merely share the same name:
“Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly (”R. Kelly”), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”
Mainstream news outlets have reported this fact accurately. But for you guys the story is simply too good to be fact-checked.
And, of course, Newt Gingrich, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John Boehner, John Roberts, Bill Gates, Billy Graham Jr. and many other dubious people were also on the list. We have no idea who visited the White House while Bush and Cheney were there because they refused to say.
Mike, outstanding job. I wonder where our media is on this??????
Several names stand out among the disclosures. People named Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Michael Jordan all visited the White House since Barack Obama became president, according to the logs.
But Eisen said the Jeremiah Wright who visited is not the controversial Chicago preacher who Obama rebuked during his presidential campaign. The William Ayers who visited is not the former member of the Weathermen, and Michael Jordan was not the NBA great.
I can believe that there are a lot of folks named Michael Jordan. I find it less likely for Jeremiah Wright, and even less likely that another William Ayers would be dropping by.
Even a nation-wide search for “W Ayers” on Yahho People Search only comes up with 191.
@Jerry Bowles:
Interesting blog you got their Jerry, recognize this:
and your blog continued to herald Obama’s promise of transparency not once mentioning that he would not fork over the logs until he was sued by CREW:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106131932
Here’s your crow, eat it:
@Jerry Bowles: Nice try Jer. It’s possible that there are some names that aren’t who we would think they are, but COME ONE! Your claim doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Perhaps this list was prepared by an ACORN volunteer who used their usual method of registering voters and just put down the name of every famous person he or she knows.
I also find it interesting that you include the Rev. Billy Graham Jr. among “many other dubious people.”
Says a lot about you doesn’t it?
Wonder what that was all about, certainly no good:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/10/figures-top-radical-behind-obamas-flawed-honduran-strategy-weaned-at-soros-think-tank/
@Left behind
Yes it’s the same POS.
From Discoverthenetworks:
* Was a member of Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s
* Co-founder of the Weather Underground Organization
* Environmentalist
* Owns consulting firm that helps grassroots leftist organizations promote their agendas and fundraise successfully
* Director of New York State’s chapter of the Apollo Alliance
Jeffrey Carl Jones was born into a Quaker family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in February 1947. In September 1965 he enrolled at Antioch College in Ohio. A month later he joined the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and became active as an anti-war speaker on college campuses. In April 1967 Jones quit school to become the regional office coordinator of New York City’s SDS chapter, a position he held until December 1968.
During his tenure with SDS, Jones became a sworn enemy of the United States government. Believing that America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia was immoral, he sided with the North Vietnamese communists. Formally renouncing the conscientious-objector status that had been conferred on him as a result of his Quaker lineage, he began referring to himself and his ideological comrades as “communist revolutionaries.”
In November 1967 Jones and fellow anti-war radical Cathlyn Platt Wilkerson went on a fact-finding mission to Cambodia, where they had a friendly meeting with representatives from the North Vietnamese embassy and members of the National Liberation Front, the communist army of the Vietcong.
In August 1968 Jones participated in a large-scale protest at the site of the Democratic National Convention, a protest that escalated into rioting on the streets of Chicago. At one point, Jones shouted to his fellow rioters:
“The power belongs to the young people and the black people in this country. We’re going to remake this country in the streets. Don’t get hung up on this fourth party bullsh**. Don’t get hung up on peace candidates. Come on! We gotta fight it out where the only power we can build is. That’s at the base. We gotta build a strong base and someday we gotta knock those motherfu**ers who control this thing right on their ass.”
By mid-June of 1969, Jones, along with Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd, became a leader of SDS’s most militant wing and formed a new radical organization, Weatherman. They issued a Weatherman “manifesto” eschewing nonviolence and calling for armed opposition to U.S. policies; advocating the overthrow of capitalism; exhorting white radicals to trigger a worldwide revolution by fighting in the streets of the “mother country”; and proclaiming that the time had come to launch a race war against the “white” United States on behalf of the non-white Third World.
Jones helped to promote and organize an October 1969 demonstration in Chicago, timed to coincide with two significant events: (a) the trial of the “Chicago Seven” defendants who stood accused of having incited the aforementioned riots of 1968; and (b) the second anniversary of the death of Che Guevara.
“Bring the War Home” was the slogan for this latest Chicago rally. Addressing those in attendance, Jones claimed to be the embodiment of Marion Delgado, a five-year-old Chicano boy who had placed a slab of concrete on a railroad track and derailed a passenger train in California 22 years earlier – a symbol of the immense amount of damage that the small were capable of inflicting on the mighty.
At the end of his talk, Jones exhorted his listeners to take violently to the streets, thereby unleashing the so-called “Days of Rage” which featured rioters (many of them affiliated with Weatherman) smashing windows, damaging cars, and clashing with police. In the 1980s, Jones would reminisce about the Days of Rage:
“The point of [the action] was that if they’re going to continue to attack the Vietnamese and to kill the [Black] Panthers, then we as young white people are going to attack them behind the lines…. That’s why we … smashed up people’s private property … and fought the cops…. The situation was so grave, what the U.S. was doing — this of course was true — that we had to take extreme measures.”
Jones was arrested for his role in the Days of Rage, along with approximately 100 others. He was charged with “crossing state lines to foment a riot and conspiring to do so.” When he he failed to appear for his March 1970 court date, the FBI launched a manhunt to track him down.
Also in March 1970, Jones and Weatherman issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government. For the first time, they used a new name, the “Weather Underground Organization,” adopting fake identities and restricting themselves exclusively to covert activities.
Jones would manage to elude law-enforcement authorities for a decade. After living for more than a year in San Francisco with fellow fugitive Bernardine Dohrn, Jones and Weather Underground comrade Eleanor Raskin relocated to New York’s Catskill Mountain region in 1971; during the years that followed, they would reside variously in New Jersey and the Bronx, New York.
In 1974 Jones co-authored — along with Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Celia Sojourn — the book Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism, whose title was an allusion to Mao Zedong’s observation that “a single spark can start a prairie fire.” This publication contained the following statements:
* “We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men … deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.”
* “Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside.”
* “The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.”
* “Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle.”
* “Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. Without armed struggle there can be no victory.”
* “We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society.”
* “Our job is to tap the discontent seething in many sectors of the population, to find allies everywhere people are hungry or angry, to mobilize poor and working people against imperialism.”
* “Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism / imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit.”
In late October 1981, Jones and Raskin were caught in a police sweep of individuals suspected of having participated in the deadly robbery of an armored truck in Nyack, New York three days earlier. A week before their sentencing in December 1981, Jones and Raskin were married. At sentencing, Jones received probation and community service, while the charges against Raskin were dropped.
Jones thereafter spent ten years as a communications director for Environmental Advocates of New York. He currently heads Jeff Jones Strategies, a consulting firm that specializes in helping grassroots leftist organizations promote their agendas and fundraise successfully. His clients include, among others, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Workforce Development Institute, New Partners for Community Revitalization, the Land Trust Alliance, the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development, the Healthy Schools Network, and the League of Conservation Voters.
Jones also serves as director of New York State’s chapter of the Apollo Alliance, which helped craft portions of the $787 billion “stimulus” legislation that President Barack Obama signed into law in early 2009.
In addition, Jones is a board member of West Harlem Environmental Action; the Mohawk Hudson Land Conservancy; the Healthy Schools Network; the Capital District Chapter of the League of Conservation Voters; and the financial arm of Movement for a Democratic Society, a group that works closely with the newly reconstituted SDS.
A resident of Albany, New York, Jones is a member of Governor David Paterson’s Energy and Environment Transition Commission. He is also affiliated with New York’s Workforce Development Institute, which advises state and local governments and universities on how to write their grants in a manner that is likely to successfully secure funds from the aforementioned stimulus bill.
Jones identifies “climate change and global warming” as his chief environmental concern. He says”
“What bothers me about it is the impact that it will have on people, and the people who are least able to deal with it. We saw this with [Hurricane] Katrina. We know that sea-level rise is going to affect island nations, poor nations like Bangladesh. These are human-rights, social-justice issues that really impact me personally a lot.”
Yes people with the same names as radicals are so interesting, we invite them to the White House to chat. It is amazing what you can learn from these not really infamous people, just regular people with the same names as despicable racists and unrepentant terrorists.
Generals and war are so blase and plebeian; we keep those annoying visits to a minimum, to insure our good karma.
As President, why should I devote time to war, I am sooo busy running the world and posing for photo-ops, you saw me saluting the dead heroes, I was so sharp looking, maybe I should get a uniform like Hugo and Fidel.
I certainly wouldn’t believe “not that Jeramiah Wright…William Ayers”, etc unless they identify them as to their affiliation and reason for being there. Then they can be looked up. Wonder if Opfrey got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom? Andy Stern the Communist head of the SEIU, eight times and international currency terrorist, G. Soros, four times. Someone ought to check what happened in the markets in the days/weeks immediately following these visits.
You’ve been punked!
Right Wing Falsely Asserts Right Wing Boogeymen Bill Ayers And Jeremiah Wright Visited The White House
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/30/right-wing-fact-check-fail/
DRUDGE EPIC FAIL: Headline Says Ayers, Wright White House Guests
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/31/01132/057
I can certainly believe that those 3 names are not the same people. This fact takes nothing away from the fact that those are the only 3 names, and that there are dozens of other Commie-assbites who have visited their “sort of like” god in the White House.
@JimRobinson: Yeah, like I believe the White House! Sure…
Hey… didn’t Obama also say if you liked your health care plan you could keep it? FUNNY!
Beg pardon, Stern had 22 visits.
Oh my, a visitor from Obama’s wet keyboard brigade.
Questions, questions.
Did this manchild appoint tax cheats to his cabinet?
Opt for a host of czars with questionable reputations?
Declare support for ACORN and promising them a seat at the table?
Invite the head of SEIU thugs many times and, gulp, George Soros?
Employ little Miss Mao to start a war with a press organization that dared to report the truth?
Upfront about any of it?
All while declaring his administration to be transparent, maybe more than Cuba’s, we’ll give him that.
Now this crew is telling us that the list has false positives. But of course, you betcha. We must believe, yes we can.
I don’t put it past them to do a set up by putting those names on the list to evoke an outraged reaction; no do I put it past them to deny that they were there when they actually were; nor do I put it past them to hide names of their co-conspirators from the public…putting a name in on one date, follow it with proof that the person wasn’t there…but he was there on a different day. They are quite fond of Machivelli’s ploys aren’t they? It’s just a game to slip something else by the nose of the press, public, etc. They’re liars and cheats, so what else is new?
@AnnMonterey: There are ways to verify these things. To get permission to enter the White House complex you have to submit your social security number so the Secret Service can run a background check on you to see if you represent a danger. Since so many of Obama’s cohorts rightly belong on a Secret Service watch list the job must be very daunting.
JimRobinson:
Nobody was “punked” as you assert.
Every name in the Drudge Headline was verified as a registered guest of the White House.
They may, or may not, be the the people we assumed they were, but the headline was neither false or misleading.
I find it amusing the WH states that some of the names are not those of the ‘famous’ people that have the same names. what a crock. It is truly laughable. obama and his communist henchmen couldn’t tell the truth if they were given truth serum (hmmm maybe then).
Wonder who they left off the list? A lot of those listed are people that the general populace made an assertion they visited the WH.
obama is an enemy of the United States and should be investigated – it is only time before he comes up against charges and is impeached.
@Mike’s America: Yeah, Mike. I find it too much a coincidence that these names popped up. I wish there was a way to out the truth. They are pretty diabolical. Do I think Wright was there (regardless of who signed in or when)? Yes, I always believed that he and Ayers would be brought in through the back door. I’m absolutely positive that Oprah has a video of herself being welcomed into the WH. She would never pass that up for her own special documentation of this “historical” black POTUS. Funny how none of the rest of us knew when she had her visit.
Remember, they only released names that have been requested through FOIA. Are we to believe they released “false positives” in order to comply to a court order? Just curious.
I’d be curious to know who these “nonfamous” alter egos are, who were so privileged to visit the WH.
Incidentally, one of the soldiers who died last year at the Battle of Wanat is Jonathan Ayers, whose father is Bill Ayers. I think I heard the father supporting a desire for a troop increase in Afghanistan on the news.
Remember, they only released names that have been requested through FOIA. Are we to believe they released “false positives” in order to comply to a court order? Just curious.
From the original White House press release:
Since it was made fairly clear in the press release why the false positives were included, I’d say yes.
Does anyone else remember that fake Obama thesis from last week? The one where a bunch of bloggers and radio talk show hosts got punked by a satire?
Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from all this, a so-called teachable moment, if you will.
Maybe you shouldn’t believe everything you read coming from someone with a bad, bad case of confirmation bias.
@ de stijl, and every other Obama-fluffer.
Let’s analyze this in a manner consistent with the way engineers like me look at things…
1. The CREW crew filed a FOIA request, stating that they wanted to know who had face-time with the prez. Their pov was that unsavory characters, and those with little to no character, had an inordinate amount of access to him.
Knowing this, the WH dithers and obfuscates for several months (as they are wont to do) and in the end, instead of giving the list of the people who actually received face-time, the WH gives out the list of every Tom Dick and Harry that has ever set foot in the place, including all the people who only asked but never made it in. This included tourists. This list included over one million names. The list also made no difference between “asked to visit” and “actually visited”.
-Jeremiah Wright could have asked, but didn’t show. And the Press release proves my point.
They did this on purpose, so that the “meat” is buried in the cheese and lettuce, and yes they did it for the false positives. This lets them throw the Red Herring out to divert attention from those who CREW wanted to be known. Most of the names have no affiliation listed, so there is no way to prove or NOT prove who was there, unless a narrower FOIA request is filed. If Bill Ayers the terrorist, and Bill Ayers the carpenter both visited, this list would not denote which was which.
2. The sanctimonious attitude of the O-fluffers is nothing short of pathetic. Any person with 2 brain-cell to rub together could assume that Jeremiah Wright, and the others listed were indeed the people everyone knows them to be, without being far off-base.
3. The fact that OweBama has never released anything of himself, works to keep the Red Herring poised and ready to be wielded against all who question Him. All they have to do is be able to show that one or two things are not credible (after they, or their acolytes release what is to be questioned, like a thesis) …and that will work towards getting anyone who questions Him in the future from doing so, even if the question has validity. This is an old political trick that too many people fall for.
To use this as a “teachable moment”, the best thing to do now, is loudly demand he release his school transcripts…all of them, not just the one thesis. I also want how he paid for college, and who paid it. But because of all the waste-of-time focus that’s been on his Birth-Cert, this demand will never be made, even though it has a much larger impact on who he truly is.
The birthers got played, to keep his other records hidden.
The CREW crew got played, to keep his actual visitors hidden.
Both of these “plays” work toward discrediting any future questioners.
@Wordsmith: Well, if it was an offspring of “our” Bill Ayers, the first question I’d ask is which side had he been fighting on? We know “our” Bill wouldn’t fight for the USA and would have fully indoctrinated little Comrades to follow suit.
Otherwise, it must not be fun if your last name is Ayers…people wondering if you are related, etc.
I make three observations:
1) The conservatives inability to take at face value anything Obama says or does says more about them than it does about him.
2) Why not just admit that you jumped the gun, assumed the worst, and got punk’d because of it? In other words, admit the obvious and don’t try to blame the White House, or raise some ridiculous conspiracy theories.
3) Many of the problems with conservatives can be explained by simply knowing a little something about psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)#Splitting_as_a_defense_mechanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealization_and_devaluation
You folks, I am afraid, are doing what psychologists call “splitting.” Obama is seen as purely evil/bad/manipulative, such that, from the outside, the “over the top” conservative conclusions from seemingly innocuous incidents looks like you are all nuts. Whether it is the reaction to him taking his wife out to dinner, the visit to Dover, or this . . . there is a constant drumbeat from the right of hysterical melodramatic hyperbole. You folks are, as one blogger observed, turning into “white noise” that moderates are tuning out — kinda like the guy on the street corner who screams, day after day, “The end is near!” No one is listening anymore . . . .
B-Rob,
I don’t disagree with your point about “jumping the gun”. However:
You could just as well replace “Obama” with “Bush” and direct your comment to BDSers at leftwing blogs because what you are accusing us of is not exclusively a “rightwing” thing. Both sides engage in these “over the top conclusions from seemingly innocuous incidents”.
de stijl, and every other Obama-fluffer.
Patvann, was one word in my comment pro-Obama? (Disclosure: I did not vote for him.)
I thought I was fairly clear in my point that one should question extraordinary claims based on non-existent or unclear evidence – especially extraordinary claims coming from someone who exhibits a clear ideological bent.
Confirmation bias is rampant in political opinion. Too often folks see what they want to see. This does not necessarily make it so.
You want to analyze this like an engineer? Then why the completely unsupported claims like:
“They did this on purpose, so that the “meat” is buried in the cheese and lettuce, and yes they did it for the false positives.”
“Any person with 2 brain-cell to rub together could assume that Jeremiah Wright, and the others listed were indeed the people everyone knows them to be, without being far off-base.”
And then there’s this ad hominem: “OweBama”.
When you claim the authority of the logical high ground and then go on to raw supposition, emotional appeals, guilt-by-association, etc. you undercut your position.
Wordsmith sez:
Absolutely true.
@ Wordsmith, you wrote the following:
“You could just as well replace ‘Obama’ with ‘Bush’ and direct your comment to BDSers at leftwing blogs because what you are accusing us of is not exclusively a ‘rightwing’ thing. Both sides engage in these ‘over the top conclusions from seemingly innocuous incidents’.”
I am not understanding the purpose of changing to subject and trying to universalize the problem. I do not recall anyone on the left, for example, seeing a conspiracy around every corner the way we saw it with this list issue.
In addition, there are a few factual problems with this claim. First, I do not recall, in March 2001, anyone in the media claiming that GWB was starting a fascist takeover of America. Alas, in March 2009, the drumbeat against Obama had already started. I also do not recall anyone doing angry rallies about Bush destroying America in August 2001; but with Obama, by August 2009, you had a major cable network basically doing p.r. for astro-turfed “grassroots” tea-bagger rallies across the country. The nutty “Obama is Hitler” rhetoric, the signs, FEMA concentration camps being boosted on Fox News, etc. And we are not even a year into the administration.
In contrast, the “Bush is a fascist liar” stuff did not start until well after the Iraq invasion, which was March 2003. It really took off after the body bags started coming home and after in became well apparent that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and Saddam had no w.m.d. Of course, due to the Bushies being asleep at the wheel on 9/11, there was some “Bush knew what was happening” talk, too. But that all just goes to show how this is even nuttier: Obama is “Hitler” already — and he has not invaded any other countries, or had a “9/11 is like the Reichstag fire” kind of incident to stoke paranoia. Given that Obama has gotten even more harsh commentary than Bush ever did, including people on the right calling for a coup!
Another difference: I doubt you can name a single Dem office holder who said anything about Bush being Hitler. Compare that to the GOPer birther partyholders, the GOPers pushing the “Mengele-like death panel” b.s., nutty Bachman, etc.
Lastly, I focus on the word “delegitimization”. From the very beginning, there has been an effort to question the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency. The birther theory is too stupid to bother addressing here, but you know what it is about. And yes there was some questions about Bush’s legitimacy too. But remember how Bush took office (a two month long court battle and winning by one electoral vote from the state his brother ran after getting fewer votes than the opponent). Obama, in contrast, simply wiped out his opponent. So to compare the even more intense delegitimization actions against Obama and compare it to the factual underpinings proves my point: this conservative wackiness is WAY DIFFERENT than anything Bush faced, whether in timing, in factual support for the theories, in the support of the political institutions and the media, or in kind.
In conclusion, I have long seen that the right was becoming unhinged. I did not understand WHY the conservative reaction to Obama was so unhinged until I was reminded of the psychology of “splitting”. It all makes sense through that lens, including the idea that Obama intentionally release an overbroad list to make the conservatives look stupid.
@B-Rob:
I’m not changing the subject, junior. I’m addressing your comment which expands upon the topic by saying this example of us possibly “jumping the gun” before doing further fact-checking is prevalent by rightwingers gripped by conspiratorial paranoia, hysteria, partisan-hatred, and exaggerations. Should I just let your smear go unaddressed so as not to supposedly “change the subject”?
Then you must be a man of the left. Congratulations for being as partisanly blind to the conspiratorial paranoia, hysteria, partisan-hatred, and exaggerated claims that come from your side of the aisle.
Why are you specifying March?
Outrage began after the November Election. Your side never got over it; only saw what they wanted to see and wanted to claim regarding “stolen election”. This photo taken during President Bush’s inaugural in 2001:
Demonstrators protest against the election results as the inaugural parade passes by Freedom Plaza in Washington, January 20, 2001. Thousands of demonstrators booed the inauguration of President George W. Bush which took place amid the tightest security measures ever. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
So the hysteria on your side began before “King George” was even “anointed” by the Supreme Court.
Ah….trying to draw apples and bananas comparisons by timelines, eh? What significantly occurred in March that wasn’t already there throughout 2008? My side’s rejection of “The One” occurred long before March.
Ok, so we gave your guy a head start; but I don’t recall Bush spending in 8 years in office what Obama is going to be spending during his first year. Do you? He is cramming his 8 years into his first.
And you had CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, LATimes, CBS, ABC and the whole rest of the MSM brigade out there carrying his water and IGNORING the vetting of a jr. Senator who spent half his tenure on the campaign trail with zero executive experience, selected as the next savior of the country based upon the messages of hope and change and style and charisma over substance and experience.
Did you ever call to task the NYTimes endangering us by leaking classified information to the public? WaPo? USA Today? CBS and Dan Rather for trying to win 2004 for Kerry? Did you see Bush create an enemy’s list on Rather, CNN, Olbermann, Matthews?
What right is it of the presidency to declare what constitutes a news organization and to declare war against FOX while dithering over war in Afghanistan?
Did the MSM do its job prior to 2009? If you’re as open-minded as you believe you are, then I dare you to click and read the following:
The Ties That Bind…The NYT’s Kills Story To Protect Obama Before Election
VDH: MSM Unprofessional Lobbying For Obama Will, In A Decade Or Two, Become Case Study In Graduate Classes On Journalistic Ethics
Mark Halperin: MSM Bias For Obama Worst In Recent History
The WaPo Tries To Buy Back Some Of It’s Credibility
The Suppression Of Bad Obama News By Our MSM
Where Did the Public Get the Idea that McCain is Running A Negative Campaign?
The Obama Administration and Pelosified Congress is moving fast and furious…because they know they only have a small window of opportunity before 2010 to effect RADICAL change. So, should we take it slow in our critique? Be caught sleeping? Not pay attention? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!
Again: Apples and broccoli. Events in 2001 are different from where the country is in 2009. This is like saying criticism and praise of every president within the first year should be equivalent; neglecting the issues each faced at the time.
There were opinion polls that showed favor to Bush, as Americans would naturally rally around a leader to show solidarity in wartime. However, your side was never fully on board and began whining even before Afghanistan was invaded; Democrats who had a hand in anti-Saddam statements, warning about wmd (Democrats, not Bush, said Iraq’s threat was imminent), and voted for war, almost immediately reneged on and disowned their prior warmongering rhetoric when it became politically convenient for them to do so.
Dude…tell me where Bush EVER said Saddam had anything to do with the events of 9/11. You totally misunderstand the decision for removing him and the rationale for the GWoT if this is what you’re stuck with.
And saying Saddam had “no wmd” ignores the totality of the justifications for war. The burden of proof was on Saddam, btw, and he never provided full confidence that he was clean of wmd. His fault, not Bush’s.
And if “the Bushies” were asleep, then what were the Clintonistas for the previous 8 years? You know….during the years when al Qaeda was metastizing and the machinations for the events of 9/11 were being planned out?
Uh….yeah….and we’re the ones that are talking like hysterics and conspiracy artistes? Thanks for that.
There was no actionable intell. Sorry.
Obama’s doing a lot to earn his criticism. I don’t agree with birthers, so don’t lump me in there. Not all wingnuts are created equal. But pay attention! Obama’s team is not letting a good crisis go to waste. At the beginning of 2001, we were not living in crisis mode. These are drastic times, and Obama is taking drastic measures to remake America. I’m not going to wait until March of 2011 to begin my protest.
Can you name me a GOP one who has compared Obama to Hitler?
Reid called Bush a loser and liar.
Gore screaming at the top of his lungs…and himself playing on our fears.
McKinney in with the Truthers….Howard Dean entertaining the same conspiracies when he was still a viable candidate for the Dems…
Which office holders?
Or do you mean these footsoldiers of yours:
And it is your side that attempts to brand all opposition to Obama as “birthers” and “racists”. It is an attempt to marginalize legitimate opposition and criticism. To ridicule. Read Alinsky?
Great article by Steve Huntley in the Chicago Sun Times:
Read the entire thing. Can I criticize 9/11 Troothers as racists, too, based upon the reasoning your side uses? How is Joe Wilson’s inappropriate breaking of decorum a sign of racism? That’s a huge leap and only incites and divides, crying fire where none exists.
*Yawn*…..You’re only proving my argument that BOTH SIDES engage in the nuttery. You’re doing it right now!
President Bush’s win is legitimate.
You’ve proved nothing of the kind! I agree Obama won. I don’t question his legitimacy. Some do, but okay.
But if you’re trying to say that opposition and hatred of Obama is greater than it ever was for Bush, GET REAL! Just google Bush under various topics and what comes up? Mostly hate smear and ridicule. Try that with Mr. Popularity.
What floors me, is your inability to see that BOTH SIDES do this. It’s because you are as partisan as I, yet refuse to admit it. I don’t think you’re lying to me. I think you’re just blinded by your own perception and perspective as a supporter of Obama and an opponent of Bush.
Thanks Wordsmith. I was present at Bush’s first inaugural and saw that Bush hate firsthand. Mostly by idiot post-teens who knew every four letter word but “work” and “soap.”
Clearly, B-Rob has his blinders on. And before I listen to his admonishment of the folks on our side I’d want to hear how he applied the same rules to his own.
No problem, Mike.
I mean, c’mon….they ridiculed his preference in how he says “nuclear” for crying out loud! They said he exercised way too much to the point of “scary obsession”. They hated the way he walked. Damned no matter what he did.
Yet somehow I’m to believe the Democrats are pure and noble and fair-minded and evenhanded, and rational, and free-thinkers, and open-minded, and balanced, and blah blah blah….?
Give me a break!
Wordsmith and Mike’s America —
A little background: I like many sane Americans, voted for Bush in 2000. He proved, of course, to be a disaster, so by 2004, I had wised up and voted Kerry. McCain is the reason I registered R. in 2000 and have maintained that party status here in the great state of Ohio ever since. But when McCain listed as his VP candidate a woman who could barely graduate from a series of third rate universities and who could not name a single newspaper she read on a regular basis, my Obama vote was sealed. You can call me a “leftist” if you want; but any analysis of my actual voting patterns, beliefs, etc. would peg me somewhere in the “Maine Republican” range. To wingnuts, that is considered a raging socialist; normal people would call me a moderate.
On to the subject at hand: Obama. See you folks tried to do what my 13 year old would never get away with: using someone else’s hideous conduct to excuse your own. Only in this case, you are excusing the bizarre conspiracy theories of the right today by comparing them to the weird but not quite as bizarre theories of the past. You cannot actually explain why today’s conduct is sane; you just want to compare it to other insane conduct.
Bullet points:
9/11 — there is no controversy to say the Bushies were asleep at the wheel. Read any chronology about the first nine months of the Bush admin and it is obvious. And here is another simple exercise. Get the Dems 2000 platform and see what it says about al Queda. Read it. You don’t have to even bother getting the GOPs 2000 platform for comparison because the GOP platform DOES NOT MENTION ISLAMIC TERROR AT ALL! I point out 9/11 to explain why people had a factual basis to question Bushie competence and mendacity: 3000 people died on his watch in the worst single terrorist act in world history. It is obvious that the Bushies did not do anything about al Queda prior to 9/11/01; but then you try to deflect blame back to the guy who tried to do something and failed two years before that, the guy who was NOT IN OFFICE when the towers fell! Real good effort at “the buck stops over there”. But you cannot get past the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, not Clinton’s.
Iraq — you can say “actionable intelligence” all you want. But the fact remains that we invaded, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and created an al Queda training cam writ large . . . over non-existent weapons of mass destruction. If you cons would simply admit Iraq was a bad idea executed poorly, I would give you some credit. But just like the Katrina response, it showed that conservatives are best skilled at pontificating and piss poor at execution. But my larger point: libs had an expensive deadly ground invasion of a foreign country to point to as a reason for believing Bush was a megalomaniacal liar. You people pronounce Obama “Hitler” based on . . . what? The federal investment in the domestic auto industry? Do you see why one is not like the other in the Hitler comparison? And do you see why the “Obama is Hitler” stuff is a mark of insanity on the right?
I see you never bothered to even address the tea baggers, the FEMA concentration camps, the death panels, the “Obama is a communist”, “I want my country back”, etc. But most obviously, you didn’t even address the original subject of this post, which is con nuttiness gone wild such that you people see conspiracy theories and White House manipulation around every corner. WH releases a list and TELLS YOU it is can be misleading . . . yet you make fools of yourself anyway and refuse to acknowledge your own error. Like I said, among fellow conservatives, I am sure the death panels, the idea of Rev. Wright (who almost cost Obama the presidency) making late night visits to the WH, William Ayers sitting in on the Department of Homeland Security briefings . . . this all makes sense to you people. But to normal people, you all look like the guy downtown with the signs warning of the coming apocalypse. You are being chuckled at and tuned out, cons. And to quote Pat Buchanan on The McLaughlin Group, responding to the commentators laughing while observing clips of a gay pride parade circa 1993: “When you are a source of mirth and derision, you have serious political problems.”
Is that the same Jeffery Jones who player Principle Rooney in Ferris Bueler’s Day Off?
@B-Rob:
Thanks for the resume. I wondered if this were the case. However, I’d say more like a “Chuck Hagel” Republican at best; “Specter” or “Scozzofava Republican” at worst.
Certainly not a conservative. You just touted the liberal perception of Palin. How am I to take your Republican credentials serious, other than as a wishy-washy Republican who was never a conservative Republican? Saying you were on board with McCain before Palin does you no credibility favors on that front.
I don’t consider you a raging socialist. Raging moderate indoctrinated with MSM distortions? Certainly.
There you go again! What you’re trying to peg on “the right”, “the left” is just as guilty of doing. I say both sides do it because it is a “human thing” and not a “left/right” thing. Get it? You say it’s exclusive only on the right and your side (yes, YOUR SIDE) is innocent of the same. Again, you’ve willingly put blinders on due to partisan alliance to the liberal left.
Sorry, bub. Your bullet point is a misfire. Why would I deny that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch? Why would you excuse Clinton, yet blame Bush? I for one don’t blame Clinton for 9/11; but will use things he failed to do in the previous 8 years that you accuse Bush of failing to do just 9 months into office, with some of his political appointments still not in key positions due to the 2000 election results and partisanship on the part of Senator Levin and others; for nearly 7 months, confirmation hearings for Feith and a couple of other top advisors for Rumsfeld wre held up. The incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their jobs.
By your logic, do you give credit to President Bush for keeping America safe for the succeeding years to the end of his term?
I give you zero credit on this one. “actionable intelligence” was a reference to your charge of Bushies being asleep at the wheel on 9/11, there was some “Bush knew what was happening” talk, too. Please pay attention to what you write, and stay focused. There was nothing in the PDB that would have averted 9/11.
To suggest that an Al Gore presidency would have been awake at the wheel due to a line in the DNC platform? Really now? The same party that gutted the CIA in the 90’s would have turned over a new leaf in the new millennium and gotten the CIA and the FBI to communicate better in the first 9 months of a Gore presidency to avert disaster? Excuse me?!?!
There are good arguments for not invading Iraq when we did. Yours are not one of these; just hindsight distortions and obfuscating.
The majority of the rhetoric used to push for war didn’t claim Saddam had wmd- yes, some statements said such, based upon the intell the Administration was being given- but the vast majority of rhetoric was “we don’t know- and hence, the problem”. Saddam spent the previous decade in defiance and deception; and regime change became official U.S. policy under Clinton, because of it. The dangers of Saddam didn’t magically just get fabricated under Bush in 2 years time. The burden of proof that he had disarmed was upon Saddam. He did not provide that confidence, despite having 12 years and 17 UN Resolutions to do so. In a post-9/11 world, enough was enough. He made no secrets about his love of wmd acquisition; and was an open state-sponsor of exported terrorism. The administration wasn’t seeking retribution for 9/11. It was seeking to prevent the next possible terror attack by pre-empting the possible merger between Saddam feeding wmd to terrorists used as proxies.
The fact that wmd STOCKPILES were not discovered is disturbing; but doesn’t change my mind one iota that the decision made based upon what we knew at the time, had the logical conclusion that Saddam was hiding something and that he was a threat to global peace.
Saddam retained capability and intent. And nothing in his behavior indicated otherwise. Why not be happy he’s been removed from the world? If he were alive today, you’d probably be bitching about how Bush ignored NK, Iran, AND Saddam, while focusing narrowly on Afghanistan.
Dude…look at the State and local responses to Katrina- Democratic hands. You honestly think FEMA would have managed things any differently under some other leadership hands? What is the president? A micro-manager?
What would have been different had it been any one other than Bush?
Please tell me where “Bush lied”. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!!!! I’m begging you.
Heh….”you people”. So blind it’s unbelievable! Why don’t you get back to me on the Bushitler Chimp-in-Chief comparisons before you force me to defend views I don’t share?
The problem with any comparisons to Hitler or referencing Mein Kampf, is that the “logical” arguments that are trying to be put forth gets lost in the inflammatory nature of such comparisons. The comparisons certainly aren’t about rounding up Republicans and putting them into extermination camps. But why not ask those making such comparisons, hmmm? And don’t forget to ask those on your side why the comparisons of Bush to Hitler, while you’re at it.
Oh, wait…that’s right. I forgot: Your side would never engage in such despicable comparisons. I’m sorry.
Btw, isn’t it some on your side who are drawing the Hitler-Obama comparison, themselves? Not right-wingers? I’m too lazy to do the research for you. But I’m sure I’ve seen that come up a couple of times.
Heh…That’s like me cryin’ that you didn’t address my video embed; or failed to show me where Bush said Saddam had a hand in 9/11.
What do you want me to say? How much time should I devote to indulging you with? Did you even bother to read my links? Watch the embedded video?
Why don’t you do yourself and I a favor and go through the categories where these things have been discussed ad nauseam, and knock yourself out.
Do you always talk past people this way? I guess it’s easier to simply lump me in with your vision of a stereotypical, generic right-winger.
Based upon what was known at the time, we reported as we did. We jumped the gun. Facts that came out later weren’t available at the time. I’d say it’s a logical jump to assume “William Ayers” and “Jeremiah Wright” were the “famous” ones. The stretch would have been to assume otherwise. But yeah, if we got it wrong, on behalf of right-wingers on all four corners of the country, I, wordsmith of nantucket and FA fame, do hereby offer a formal apology to B-Rob, the moderate Republican who is ambassador of the pinko-commie-marxist liberal moonbat left.
Yeah, we conservatives talk in tongues and hold seances while teabaggers read the conspiracies in their tea leaves and feed us our GOP talking points. You wouldn’t understand, you being a fake Republican and all, by your own admission. Otherwise, you’d understand our nutroot lingo.
Thanks. Must be why Obama’s trending badly in the recent pollings, and America is tilting conservative.
@B-Rob: You thought a man whose only experience was as a community organizer more worthy of your vote than John McCain the man who inspired you to register as a Republican?
Wow!
And you expect me to take you seriously?
I’ll leave that to Wordsmith. He has a higher tolerance level than I do>
Having been inspired by a great patriot and financial watchdog like McCain I would think you would be saddened and embarrassed by your vote for Obama.
But instead you want to come here and defend the man by attacking those on the right who have a genuine concern about the direction this country is taking.
I want my country back too and I won’t tolerate having my principles denigrated by someone who apparently doesn’t have any of his own.
@B-Rob:
Oh no, not too stupid, let’s address it right now.
May I remind our new friend that the birther movement originated during the dem primaries, both the far right and the far left have been involved in this. Democrats got the jump start but this has since been labled, unfairly as a Republican movement when in fact, repubs, dems and independents are all in it up to their eye-balls IMHO in equal parts.
http://www.factcheck.org/tag/birth-certificate/
Philip Berg, a die hard liberal democratic attorney of over 30 years, staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton filed one of the first cases.
So it is at this time that B-Rob might offer to take responsibility and apologize for his sides portion of the birther movement. Curt, owner of this blog has in the past banned people for bringing this up, something he has seen as nonsense. Let’s see what you got, B-Rob.
The birther visitor wasn’t banned, just asked to quit posting about it over and over and over again. I don’t think the birth certificate issue is complete nonsense…kinda non-committal about it either way. Why he just doesn’t release the real thing is curious but I think we have much more to worry about, and work to fix, then the birther deal but occasional comments about the issue is no big deal to me. Just no obsessive stuff.
Whwn he said he “wised up” and voted for kerry, I knew anything else he typed would be a waste of time.
BTW there genius, if Bush was a disaster then obama is the apocalypse by your standards, right?
Yeah….he says McCain was the reason he registered as an “R” in 2000; yet voted for Bush?!
Methinks he sounds a bit like….
Just sayin’…..
B-Rob
Why is it that every time a lefty, in your case a RINO, wants to make a point they accuse conservatives of having ‘insane conspiracy theories’ or being paranoid?
Suppose that while you were deciding to register as a Republican, George W. Bush said that within the first three months of his administration he would:
(Notice I did not say BECOME a Republican)
1) Take control of the mortgage and banking industries.
2) Have the government become the largest shareholder of the Big Three automakers, appoint top executives, and executive compensation would be determined by the government.
3) Appoint more than 30 top assistants (czars) without congressional approval, and are accountable only to the president.
4) Have the Justice Department order FBI agents to Miranda detainees captured on the battlefield in a foreign country.
5) Travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi King, and then continually apologize for past US actions.
6) Introduce a “Fairness Doctrine” that would diminish the First Amendment rights of anyone who disagrees with his policies.
7) Get the leaders of congress to introduce legislation that would destroy States Rights guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment, and control energy production, health care, and the wealth of all Americans.
How would you react????????????????????? All of this, and more, have come to pass under the Obama administration.
Paranoid?? Not about the man that said: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
A man who, while talking about veteran’s healthcare, said armed forces members should self-insure because “they knew what they were getting into.” (Remember this every time you see the photo of him at Dover AFB)
In 2008 he said we should judge him by those he surrounds himself with. Consider these:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu who said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” which at the time were around eight dollars a gallon.
Department of Interior head, Senator Ken Salazar who as senator opposed leasing on federal lands and blocked development of oil shale, and now heads the department that oversees energy leasing.
Science Adviser John Holdren, claimed that global warming would kill one billion people by 2020, but in the 1970s was worried about a planet freeze. He has also advocated for a “massive campaign … to de-develop the United States.
Top assistant on energy and climate policy is former EPA administrator Carol Browner who, not too long ago, was listed as a member of Socialist International and a member of its Commission For a Sustainable World Society.
Just because I am paranoid does not mean there is reason not to be paranoid.
This is not ‘insane conspiracy’ it is fact. Call me crazy – but I’m scared to death.
You on the other hand have your head stuck where the sun never shines.
@Curt:
Sorry Curt, I remember you getting frustrated about that topic and thought there was a banning. My memory is not something I should ever, ever count on, should have tried to look it up. Thanks for setting things straight! Agree that it’s curious that he doesn’t straighten it up and be done with it. I think he likes to lay traps no matter how expensive, it’s only money, why in the world would anyone care about that.
Here I go again, relying on memory….hasn’t Mata schooled people many times about not venturing into this mess?
BS-rob, click the links. You might learn something about yourself.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/11/psychology-of-bush-hatred.html
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/11/lets-discuss-bush-derangement-syndrome.html
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/09/lefts-paranoid-style.html
@ Hard Right —
Er, sorry, son. I do not fall into the BDS catagory. I just think he was a bad president who (1) botched Afghanistan by not sending enough troops*; (2) stupidly invaded Iraq (again, without enough soldiers), which created a grand al Queda training group in an oil rich Persian Gulf state; (3) took a balanced budget and drove it into $400 billion a year deficits (before the deluge hit in 2008) draining funds on the aforesaid war in Iraq and rather than pay with taxes, borrowed the money from the Communist Chinese; (4) backed a drug bill we could not afford and expanded the entitlement programs; (5) did nothing to address our technological competitiveness issues [like strong immigration reform so smart foreign students do not have to leave our country, visa reform to make it easier for smart foreigners to move here and do business here, industrial policy, the dollar, tarriffs, etc.]; and (6) last but not least, Bush was asleep at the switch on 9/11.**
What I think he did right? The 9/11 response in waging war on Afghanistan. About nothing more than that. The reason I voted for him and not Gore was because Gore struck me as not having any new ideas. I thought Bush would be a good president, but I was wrong. He ended up being about as bad as Carter.
Why do I say this? Because I measure a president by one question: “Has he been successful in maintaining the military, political, economic, and technological superiority of the United States of America?” On this scale, and looking back 60 years or so, I would rank Roosevelt, Reagan and Clinton on the superior scale.
Truman, Kennedy, Eisenhower were very good.
Nixon, Ford, and George H.W. Bush were successful, overall.
Carter and Bush were utter unmitigated failures.
I sometimes say “What if” about Bush. What if he actually cut spending as he cut taxes, instead of the b.s. “dynamic scoring” fiction he sold to push through tax cuts while increasing spending? What if he decided to reform Social Security by tweaking the retirement age, reducing “crazy money” and investing the Social Security surplus in a decent international blend investment fund, instead of proposing divying it up into several hundred million teeny tiny personal accounts . . . which makes no sense cost-wise? What if he decided to hold off on Iraq and let the inspectors from the IAEA do their job, then trusted in their analysis? What if he just said “no” on expanding entitlements?
If he had done these things, he would be on Mount Rushmore. Instead, he did not even get a prime time speaking position at the GOP convention this summer, did he?
* Hence the irony that cons are saying now Obama needs to act RIGHT NOW to fix the eight year old mess he was handed just this year.
** The efforts to blame Bill Clinton are ahistoric and laughable. Like the birthers, not really worth getting into here once you mention “Osama bin Laden is determined to strike in the United States” and do NOTHING in response.
@b-rob: I was at Bush’s inauguration in January of 2001 and guess what? There were protesters lining the streets screaming that he was a fascist among other names.
As per your “birther” comments, where was your support for McCain when the Dems were attacking his status as a natural born citizen because his family was stationed overseas at the time of his birth? Do you call those people “birthers”?
When you used the word “teabaggers” every other thing you said melted into an unintelligible puddle.
@ Red 73 —
Much to respond to, so here goes in a short burst response:
“1) Take control of the mortgage and banking industries.”
You were against this, I take it? OK. But first get your facst straight. The Bush administration, not Obama, started the financial sector bailouts. And what Obama and Bush did was very similar to what was done in Europe, too: stabilize today instead of risking a financial catastrop-he. What would you have rather he and Bush had done? Let AIG drag down Citi, which drags down everyone else? Not smart at all.
“2) Have the government become the largest shareholder of the Big Three automakers, appoint top executives, and executive compensation would be determined by the government.”
Again, what would you have done? let Chrysler and GM go under and throw several thousand car dealerships, auto parts manufacturers, and other related companies goe belly up in an atmosphere where you alreayd have a banking crisis . . . which, of course, you would also have let just shut down, right?
“3) Appoint more than 30 top assistants (czars) without congressional approval, and are accountable only to the president.”
Uh, huh . . . and I hopre you were protesting when Nixon invented czars, right? And when Bush II greatly expanded the number and responsibilities of them? If you were silent then, it seems to me you are not REALLY all that put off about czars, just czars who are picked by a non-conservative. In which case all I can say is: scoreboard. You don’t want liberal czars? Then next time beat the most liberal senator when he runs for president!
“4) Have the Justice Department order FBI agents to Miranda detainees captured on the battlefield in a foreign country.”
I can tell by this that you know nothing at all about the legal issues relating to detainees, the Geneva Convention, torture, etc. Read “The Dark Side” by Jane Mayer (which explains the ethical and EFFECTIVE INTELLIGENCE PROBLEMS created when you start with bogus legal opinions then create an unlawful torture regime, the torture people until they tell you anything that comes to their tortured mind). Once you have read it, get back to me.
“5) Travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi King, and then continually apologize for past US actions.”
Uh huh . . . and this hurt us HOW? Last I checked, if you f something up, it is better to admit it, repair it, then move on. You don’t continue to do the same f’ed up thing because you don’t want to admit you f’ed up. That’s just retarded!
“6) Introduce a “Fairness Doctrine” that would diminish the First Amendment rights of anyone who disagrees with his policies.”
HA HA HA HA HA! Real funny. OK, I’ll bite. Please give me the US Code section or the Code of Federal Regulations cites for this supposed new “fairness doctrine”. While you are at it, hand me the knife that was used to stab JFK to death, while you are at it. They can both be found in the same place — Rush Limbaugh’s drug addled brain.
“7) Get the leaders of congress to introduce legislation that would destroy States Rights guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment, and control energy production, health care, and the wealth of all Americans.”
Seems to me that if you what a more “state’s rights” approach, you should win the next election. When and if the Dems pass statutes that are unconstitutional, I am sure you will win in court. But to claim “Tenth Amendment” as if that answers any question shows an ignorance of the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection clause, etc. Indeed, most of the people who proclaim the Tenth Amendment don’t even acknowledge the Ninth Amendment, which I find even more interesting.
@ Wisdom —
Please name an elected Dem who said anything about McCain’s birth. Once you can identify one, then the lunacy of the birthers can be compared.
Glenn Beck called the newly elected president of the United States a “racist”. And you cons sat there and nodded your heads. An entire cable news network — not nuts in the streets, but a network — called a man elected with close to 70 million votes, who dominated the map, a fascist, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Ill, etc. And you compare that to Cindy Sheehan and a couple anarchists?
As for tea baggers . . . no one called them that UNTIL THEY STARTED IN WITH THE TEA BAGS! They were throwing tea bags, mailing tea bags to congressmen. So why would they be suprised if people called them “tea baggers”? Do you not even remember what happened?
Face it son — the conservative movement, to paraphrase Ozzie Osbourne, is going off the rails in a crazy train. William F. Buckley is turning in his grave.
B-Rob
Thank you for taking the time to respond and confirm where your head is firmly planted.
@B-Rob: So let me get this straight — the lawsuit filed challenging McCain’s eligibility to run for president would only have mattered if ELECTED Dems had questioned McCain’s citizenship? The fact that it was a “respectable” rag like the New York Times who ran with the story questioning his eligibility apparently makes no difference at all. But, someone on an opinion/editorial TV show on FOX News, which “isn’t real news” anyway, says something against the anointed one and it means that everyone right of center is “unhinged”?
I THINK I UNDERSTAND! Right winger bashes a lib…BAD!!!Left winger bashes a conservative…WHOOHOO!!!!!! Thanks for explaining it to me so clearly!
Face it “Dad”, you don’t have the slightest idea what conservatism is, and throwing out Buckley’s name doesn’t give you the slightest bit of credibility.