I distinctly remember the first time I heard Jeb Bush complaining about holding his brother responsible for the mess he left behind.
"If I had one humble criticism of President Obama, it would be to stop this notion of somehow framing everything in the context of 'Everything was bad before I got here' and focus on his duties, which we all want him to succeed. But constantly pushing down the previous president to make yourself look good I think is a bad thing."
The comments were made in early April 2009 -- Obama had been in office for about 10 weeks. Yesterday, the former Florida governor was still pushing the same line, this time on "Meet the Press."
David Gregory asked if it bothers Bush when the president blames "a lot of our economic condition on your brother." The Republican relied, "I think it is time for him to move on, I mean, he, look, the guy was dealt a difficult hand. No question about it. But he's had three years. His policies have failed."
I'll never be able to understand this perspective. George W. Bush had two terms, and bequeathed the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a jobs crisis, two wars, a trillion-dollar deficit, a collapsing auto industry, a housing crisis, a clime crisis, a dysfunctional health care system, an equally dysfunctional immigration system, a deeply divided electorate, and a nation with a severely tarnished global reputation. Nearly every challenge facing the United States right now was created or made worse by Bush's eight years in office.
Obama has had three years, and has made considerable progress in cleaning up the Republicans' mess, but Jeb Bush thinks it's inappropriate to even mention his brother's spectacular failures? Even when Obama's opponent appears eager to repeat Bush's mistakes?
Put it this way: I think the president would be making a mistake if he took Jeb's advice. Indeed, given reality, I think Obama probably doesn't blame Bush nearly enough.
Leave a Comment:
Kind of like hiring a guy with 5 DUIs to drive your kids' school bus.
It may take a generation to undo the Bush legacy.
POB is not supposed to blame Bush's mess on Bush, but it is telling that the GOP did not invite GWB or Cheney, and seldom mention the 8 yrs of disaster themselves. Their convention will attempt to rewrite any history that they haven't already ignored. Failed policies are the GOP's legacy and it would be beyond foolish to elect them again so soon, especially when they offer nothing new of value.
POB is not supposed to blame Bush's mess on Bush, but it is telling that the GOP did not invite GWB or Cheney, and seldom mention the 8 yrs of disaster themselves. Their convention will attempt to rewrite any history that they haven't already ignored. Failed policies are the GOP's legacy and it would be beyond foolish to elect them again so soon, especially when they offer nothing new of value.
It is ludicrous to expect POB to ignore Bush's legacy just because the GOP do. The party wants to preach personal responsibility but accept none for their own failed policies and leadership.
Sorry but Obama is going to have to accept his failure to improve upon what he was given.
Much like Shooter's been given this forum to express ideas and instead he uses it for his bizarre erotic fetishes?
No. Because things have improved under Obama. So they're totally different.
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
Much like Shooter's been given this forum to express ideas and instead he uses it for his bizarre erotic fetishes?
No. Because things have improved under Obama. So they're totally different.
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
A wee parable:
"For the fifth labor, Eurystheus ordered Hercules to clean up King Augeas' stables. Hercules knew this job would mean getting dirty and smelly, but sometimes even a hero has to do these things. Then Eurystheus made Hercules' task even harder: he had to clean up after the cattle of Augeas in a single day.
Now King Augeas owned more cattle than anyone in Greece. Some say that he was a son of one of the great gods, and others that he was a son of a mortal; whosever son he was, Augeas was very rich, and he had many herds of cows, bulls, goats, sheep and horses."
And one of those horses was the mighty Filly "Buster", ridden by the Dark Prince, McConnell of Tennessee.
So, here we are, in a close election between Hercules and the Rightful Heir to the Throne.
I'll put it a bit more simply ... It's ALWAYS easier to destroy than create. Our economy was destroyed over 8(+) years. If you expected things to be fixed in 3-4 years, you're an idiot.
"George W. Bush had two terms, and bequeathed the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a jobs crisis, two wars, a trillion-dollar deficit, a collapsing auto industry, a housing crisis, a clime crisis, a dysfunctional health care system, an equally dysfunctional immigration system, a deeply divided electorate, and a nation with a severely tarnished global reputation. Nearly every challenge facing the United States right now was created or made worse by Bush's eight years in office." - Bill Freeman
excuse me for suggesting it, but where were the Democrats during those 8 years? I guess there were none in Congress to express their opposition to those policies that GWB 'rammed thru' during the middle of the night?
Not even 1 single U S Democratic Senator raised the alarm?
You know, now that I think about it, I remember those 8 years as one of peace and joy. All voices in the Congress and Media had nothing but praise for the President. The Republicans were in total control of both houses of Congress the full 8 years and did whatever they wanted. I think that I even remember that it was GWB who organized and plotted and was successful in getting 21 guys to mascarade as Arabs and hijack planes to ram into buildings in furtherance of his Nazi like policies.
GWB also spent the rest of his time issuing executive orders to go around congress whenever they wouldn't rubber stamp his proposals.
Those were the GOOD OLD DAYS! Evil Republicans behind every bush, strangling babies and old women in the night.
Ahh! For a return to those days of peace and joy in the world!!
You know the blinding hypocrisy and lies makes it difficult for me to even listen to these sloths. George W. had two terms in which to create the conditions that this President inherited - but shhhhh, we're not going to talk about it, really?! While everyone expected this President to "clean it up in 1 term", come on, get real! The fact that he's been able to accomplish what he's already done in the face of an obstructionist congress and a slice of American know-nothing protestations is a cause to celebrate, not chuck him for a guy that would return this nation to the same failed policies of tax-cuts (for the few) and deregulation (for the greedy) on steroids - but shhhh, no one really wants to talk details is astounding and shameful!
Yep, the GOTP are a party of "values & morals" - if your "family" is a pack of vultures, lions, or wild dogs!
President Obama has made some mistakes, but when you say President Obama's failed policies - GOP did not pass the American Jobs Act, the smaller version to just put Teachers and First Responders back to work and the Infrastructure Bill. Failed policies: Stimulus - where would we be if there was no stimulus, bailout of the auto industry again how much worse off would we be if there was no bailout.
If the Republicans were so sure his policies would not work than why not pass the American Jobs Act and let America see, the reason because they only thought about getting control back putting Party before County - Cowards.
OK, serious question time. The idea of a jobs bill is to have govt create jobs, right? Why? Because the left thinks it will increase "demand" and stimulate business, right?
Does the left actually get why people go into business in the first place? I mean it certainly doesn't seem so....
Shooter - please follow the yellow brick road.
People go into business to sell something Shooter. Why else would they go into business? How does a business survive? By selling to people without money?
The "Jobs bill" wasn't to create "demand", it was to put people back to work (teachers, cops, the guys & gals who build things like roads & bridges). People who are working are people who have more money and people who have money go to the businesses that other people created and buy things from them. This is what is known as a market economy. People with money go to the "market" and buy from the "fruit grower" or the "potato farmer" (ie. the business people).
Tell me again, Shooter, how does a person with no money support a business?
So, if Obama wants to be anti-business that's his choice, but he shouldn't be surprised if jobs and taxes are depressed.
Holy jumping jezuz on a pogo-stick, you are right-some stupid.
Business comes first?? They go into business to make money with "selling" the thing they went into business "as" as a mere means to an end? So an accountant that wants to open up his own accounting agency decides to do so in an area where there are no people. According to your theory, he should do just fine with no customers because business comes first. What a fu king maroon.
There is no FIRST. That the right can't see that is just insane. No thinking person decides to open a business until AFTER they've determined if there's DEMAND for their business. Ask your local bank to loan you $20,000 to start up a business and do you know what they'll ask for? A business plan to details how you will attract CUSTOMERS.
Also, how is a "real job" different from a "job".
@Shooter - Oh dear, another kool-aid drinker. There are certain things in a nation that the federal government does better than private enterprise. For example, you certainly would not want roads and bridges to be a run by a private business. How exactly would you do that. Pay a yearly fee to use the road from your house to your job, from your house to the store, pay a toll any time you got off a road that was not one you paid for? Now how exactly is it that a 'government' job does not count as a job? Does the person employed not pay taxes? Do they not buy clothing, food, appliances, etc. that adds to the need for jobs for those products? A civilized country must have roads, bridges, fire departments, police, teachers, save air space for travel, clean water, air and land. If you do not protect your soil you are without food. For businesses to thrive they must be secure in knowing their wealth and their property is safe. They must be able to transport those goods of the produce goods. If they use other peoples products to produce their goods they must be secure in knowing that they will not be cheated and what they are being sold is safe to use. If you truly think you can get by without government, I suggest you move to Somalia where they have not government and everything is a free for all.
80's girl
It seems to be a truism that one can't argue with a liberal without being personally insulted. Why is that?
Onward. Yes, business comes first. Take your acct for instance. Before this person can take on clients, she has to have the necessary education, advertise, get the local permits. In other words all the things necessary to do business have to be set up first. An acct can work out of her house and advertise by word of mouth, but a restaurant owner has to rent a space, buy equipment, hire cooks and wait staff, and advertise before he makes the first penny. As for demand, the restaurant owner can have the best business plan ever, but if people don't like his food or service, there's not enough demand to stay in business. And all that investment goes up in smoke.
But more importantly, business is the only institution that creates economic wealth (goods and services). With that wealth comes profit. If a business doesn't make a profit, it dies. Jobs are gone, tax revenues aren't made. So, yes. Business comes first.
Dee,
This is just a version of "you didn't build that". Nobody denies the essential functions of Govt are necessary. Nobody denies the need for taxes.
You obviously don't live in NJ or DC. Private toll roads are a fixture. Heck, public toll roads are a fixture. The real question is who builds the actual roads. You don't see suits laying asphalt do you? No, roads and bridges are built by private enterprise. Meanwhile said roads are paid for by either tolls or taxes
Govt jobs get a paycheck, but they (most) don't create economic wealth (goods and services). Only business does that. Teachers teach, but I can't sit on someone's education. Administrators issue rules, but they don't feed the cat. The NIH does research, but doesn't provide medicines. All these people facilitate, they don't create. And yes, they put money into an economy, but it's money that was taken out of the economy first.
As for Sudan, do they not have demand? Don't those people want stuff, like food, shelter, and clothing? According to you, wanting stuff is all that's needed for prosperity. Obviously that's not true. Fulfilling demand requires money, and money comes from jobs. Where do jobs and taxes come from? Business.
Any questions?
PS Thanks for not being personally insulting. That makes you a rarity.
so when shooter writes "Serious question time," doesn't this mean his questions routinely aren't serious?
Why argue with someone who doesn't care what your answer is, as long as you're angry he's thrilled. Thrilled and moist.
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
Oh boo. Shooter got his feelings hurt. Tough turd. You can avoid being personally insulted by not being a dick. Oh gosh, sorry, I insulted you again.
In your reply to me you suggest the business must come first because the accountant had to get an education. But, in your reply to Dee you make the case the education is pointless because you "can't sit on someone's education". So, education promotes the "business first" model only until you run up to the idea that government provides the education and then suddenly it's not "real".
You still haven't answered my question: how is a "real job" different from a job? Also, I pointed out that a bank won't loan you money until you provide the proof that you have a solid plan to attract CUSTOMERS. Nothing to say about that? Or do you need to check with Faux News to figure that one out.
Gosh, that sounded insulting didn't it. Darn. Just can't help it. Dealing with fu king morons seems to bring out the conservative in me.
Gee, I thought you guys were concerned about civility. I guess we can put that meme away. As for myself I don't care, it comes with the territory. I note it because it almost all liberal commenters are personally nasty. If you don't care how that makes you sound, so be it.
The acct example was tricky because I know several that started out of their house with no startup costs. Ergo, no need for a bank. That's why I included a restaurant which requires the business be set up first before demand can be determined. You can walk into the bank and have a wizard plan, but no one knows until after the business is launched whether there will be enough demand/customers/revenue to continue. The business came first, then the cooks and wait staff jobs.
A real job creates economic wealth (goods and services), a "job" job is like any staff position. It facilitates the creation of wealth, but doesn't actually produce goods and services. The test is whether the job will produce something somebody else will buy. When hiring someone, their education might be a factor, but the hire will depend on whether the employer thinks the person can do the work.
Any questions?
i remember how the great and wonderful gipper spent his two terms blaming carter for everything but his hemorrhoids. you would have thought he served four terms. the republicans give hypocrisy a bad name.
Well yes, Reagan more properly should have blamed LBJ for Carter's woes, but Carter's failure of leadership did him in. That and the much deserved ridicule over the "killer rabbit".
Pissed me off yesterday, too, when David Gregory didn't challenge him on the "You didn't build it" comment and Bush used it as part of the support of the GOP platform. When will these interviewers stop letting these guys get away with these untrue statements.
Though I have known JEB!?! for a long time and have disagreed with him on most things that whole time and have never voted for him I have to say the current crop of wanna be national class politicians in both parties should watch the interview over and over again until they get his technique down.
No matter what the question, from Jon Stewart to his family's legacy, JEB!?! was there to push the economic argument for his side so all his answers were the same: Blah, de Blah, but, the economy etc..
As wrong as JEB!?! is his performance was a fine thing to watch
Whether Bush left Obama a bad hand or not, it is what it is. Obama was hired to fix the problem-and after four years he has not. So.......from a logical standpoint we need a new CEO again. It's that simple. Another Democrat or another Republican, that shouldnt be the issue. We need a CEO and a team who has the expertise to get the job done, period.
You neglected to mention that one side kept hiding the tools needed to fix the problem. When the loyal opposition only goal is to make POB a one term president, no matter who gets hurt in the process, it speaks more to GOP venality than to POB's leadership. Aboard ship, what the GOP did would be called mutiny.
I don't care what economists say, but this was/is a depression and not a recession. Obama's mistake was not treating it as urgent in the first days of his presidency. And Dems as well as the media should have been calling it the Bush Depression. It would have insured that Jeb Bush could not run for president without the term "Bush Depression" being subconsciously associated with him. No one would hear the term "job creators" if Dems had call the event a depression. Obama should have demanded a huge jobs program in the first 100 days. Public opinion would have forced Congress including the unwilling Blue Dogs to vote for such a bill.
I didn't care for George W. Bush, although I tend to rate Romney lower with all the blatant lying. I know Romney donates to his church, but I look at George W Bush's post-presidency work on AIDS more favorably as well.
If I blame any Republicans for failure in policies, I blame Republican leadership like Mitch McConnell who wanted Obama to be a 1 term president and who discouraged Republicans from even backing issues/stances, which they had originally championed: DREAM act; key parts of Affordable Health Care which took from the earlier work Republicans did. I blame them for the debt ceiling debacle with Boehner grandstanding for attention. I blame them for all the abortion amendments which were added to unrelated bills which just slowed Congress down. Then there are the Republican activists like Grover Norquist who would rather see the country tank than see it raise taxes and you want to talk about patriotic?
They put party before country.
Some people think a CEO should be leading the country like a business, but then it's not a *democracy*. And a minority that puts their personal objectives over the good of the whole enterprise, business or country, to the extent that they aren't willing to compromise; they aren't willing to work with others; they're not team players: to me that's unprofessional.
...
Why Shooter this is the nicest smartest thing you've ever said!