Remember when there were "liberal" media? Like the WaPo? Funny how things change.
Today there's a long article decrying the fact the Obama has been pointing out he inherited the economic mess in which we find ourselves. So much for post-partisanship, they imply. Where does he get off doing that, they ask.
What a crock of sh*t!!!
At the very end of the article, way past the point where most people read, it's mentioned, sort of parenthetically, that the Rs have taken to calling it the Obama recession, the Obama market, the Obama economy. Yeah, like after eight years, the person who takes over owns it in a month. If that's fair, then what's unfair about pushing back? Particularly when the pushback is toward the undeniable truth.
There are no politicians who are above criticism, Obama included; but really, this is pretty pathetic. Trying to blame him for the mess -- which is the only way Republicans can survive -- and then taking offense when he points out the obvious. And they're no longer even subtle about their hypocrisy. Like breathing, there's nothing to hide: we lie, we say stupid stuff, we do the very things we complain about. So what? Who's gonna notice?
Once again, simply another in a string of outrages, we see what politics has become in this country. It's hard to be hopeful.
.
At the very end of the article, way past the point where most people read, it's mentioned, sort of parenthetically, that the Rs have taken to calling it the Obama recession, the Obama market, the Obama economy. Yeah, like after eight years, the person who takes over owns it in a month. If that's fair, then what's unfair about pushing back? Particularly when the pushback is toward the undeniable truth.
There are no politicians who are above criticism, Obama included; but really, this is pretty pathetic. Trying to blame him for the mess -- which is the only way Republicans can survive -- and then taking offense when he points out the obvious. And they're no longer even subtle about their hypocrisy. Like breathing, there's nothing to hide: we lie, we say stupid stuff, we do the very things we complain about. So what? Who's gonna notice?
Once again, simply another in a string of outrages, we see what politics has become in this country. It's hard to be hopeful.
.
In 1998 and 1999 they refused to give Clinton any credit for a good economy, because, they said, it takes about eight years for a president's policy to have an effect on the economy.
ReplyDeleteand of course, the dixie chicks went through hell for expressing their views, but douchebag fatico is defended for wanting obama to fail.
ReplyDeletethe most frustrating part is that the only conservatives who seem to get much media attention [and therefore the ones by which i judge all conservatives] seem completely unaware of how distasteful and utterly moronic they appear to anyone still in possession of their frontal lobes.
"In 1998 and 1999 they refused to give Clinton any credit for a good economy, because, they said, it takes about eight years for a president's policy to have an effect on the economy."
ReplyDeleteSources?
"the dixie chicks went through hell"
ReplyDeletePoor babies! They insulted their own fans, then complained that their fans didn't like it. Were they put out of business or something? In jail? Not allowed to record? Uh...no.
Looks like a delicious bowl of Chili to me... you say To-mato, I say To-mahto...
ReplyDelete"In 1998 and 1999 they refused to give Clinton any credit for a good economy, because, they said, it takes about eight years for a president's policy to have an effect on the economy."
ReplyDeleteThey also spent some time claiming that the good economy was a result of the republican congress, as I recall.
The only good thing I can see is that it's unlikely that any Bush will ever inhabit the White House again. "Two Bushes, two recessions....let's make it three for three!" doesn't sound very well as a campaign slogan.
Sorry, this is just one of the mornings when I think a bounty on conservatives might be a good idea. It'd reduce the drain on planetary resources, too.
Nancy
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Poor babies! They insulted their own fans, then complained that their fans didn't like it. Were they put out of business or something? In jail? Not allowed to record? Uh...no."
no, but i do recall the republicans screaming bloody murder and saying that the dixie chicks were traitors because they criticized the president. hmm, i also recall cd-burning demonstrations, death threats, metal detectors, policer escorts and two disc jockeys being fired for playing dixie chicks music.
the point was simply that republicans throw hissy fits when one of their own is criticized, but act like raving lunatics towards the president and don't raise an eyebrow, nay, defend even, those who encourage the failure of the president and willfully spread lies about him.
anonymous, did you get the point? Uh. . . no.
"screaming bloody murder"..."throw hissy fits"
ReplyDeleteOkay, not a lot of facts to go on here. Country music fans (and others) were offended that the DC said "and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." Now, as it turns out, a lot of country music fans are from Texas and were and are proud of GWB.
I don't think anyone seriously tried to keep the DC from expressing their views then or later. But fans are free to listen or not listen, buy or not buy. Fans can also express their views by burning CDs or saying they don't like the DC. Fair enough?
Maybe the DC could have thought before they spoke. "Will this offend our audience--the people we make our money from?" Free to say it--but they need to weigh the consequences.
"went through hell"
What did they lose? Their fans? Poor babies!
ivyfree and haubrich--
ReplyDeleteAny sources? I lived through this time--none of what you say happened.
"Bounty on conservatives"
Violence from the tolerant left-wing? Who'd have thought? Is this Bill Ayers???
It does seem that Obama could spend less time criticizing Bush (I don't recall Bush criticizing Clinton at all--maybe you think that there was nothing to criticize?) and more time trying to field a cabinet.
ReplyDeleteSeems like the economy is important, but Obama has only a Treasury secretary, nothing else. A lot of seats to fill there--Geithner could use some help, you think?
Commerce seems important too. but no secretary there, either. The person who in Obama's judgment would be the best commerce secretary has called Geithner's plan a lie. That seems serious. Maybe Obama should have had a little more executive experience before taking on this job?
It does seem that Obama could spend less time criticizing Bush (I don't recall Bush criticizing Clinton at all--maybe you think that there was nothing to criticize?) and more time trying to field a cabinet.
ReplyDeleteWow. Short memory. Bush (and/or his henchpeople) said the same about Clinton that Obama is saying about Bush: inherited. More than that, Bush overtly undid everything Clinton had done: Korea, for example. Then had to backtrack, too late.
Seems like the economy is important, but Obama has only a Treasury secretary, nothing else. A lot of seats to fill there--Geithner could use some help, you think?
Huh? Council of economic advisors, including Larry Summers, Romer, etc. Lots of 'em, all over the place.
Commerce seems important too. but no secretary there, either. The person who in Obama's judgment would be the best commerce secretary has called Geithner's plan a lie.
Can you say Gary Locke?
That seems serious. Maybe Obama should have had a little more executive experience before taking on this job?
Not that I can see. He's getting more done, more quickly, than Bush did in this time-frame, even facing enormously larger problems.
Anonymous: none of it happened? Yike. See above.
"Any sources? I lived through this time--none of what you say happened."
ReplyDeleteI lived through this time, and it did. You're free to ignore history, however.
"Bounty on conservatives"
Violence from the tolerant left-wing? Who'd have thought? Is this Bill Ayers???
When did you ever hear me suggest that idiocy ought to be tolerated? For that matter, who decided I speak for 3/4 of the country? They can speak for themselves, and me, I'll regret the existence of conservatives. A lot.
They're a waste of space, they make stupid noises when they open their mouths, and if you don't keep your eye on them, they steal the country blind.
It's astonishing that anyone could mention the DC's without mentioning that they were effectively banned from commercial country radio, which was then almost entirely controlled by Clear Channel Communications -- which was controlled by major GOP donors and was more or less run as a proxy operation for Karl Rove. CCC stations were actually organizing and promoting CD-breaking parties for DC albums. A full-tilt McCarthyite astroturf extravaganza.
ReplyDeleteActually it's not so astonishing that you guys would leave that out. Ignorance is, after all, how you roll
But--can this be wrong, then?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/business/economy/09treasury.html?_r=2
Maybe this should worry us:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/03/15/2009-03-15_more_than_a_bad_day_worries_grow_that_ba.html
Never mind--I guess we're fine. Obama says the economy is just fine. Although he mocked McCain when he said it:
ReplyDeletehttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/15/1399191.aspx
BB: see, the thing is, words have meaning. When you say "has only a Treasury secretary, nothing else," I took it to mean "has only a Treasury secretary, nothing else." Silly me.
ReplyDeleteShould we worry that right-wing commentator questions Obama's competence? After what he's accomplished in two months? Not me. But I understand what you're really worried about: if O succeeds, the Rs become even more irrelevant, and for decades. If I were you, I'd be worried, too. So, wish and hope.
PS, BB: (didn't see your other brilliant comment)
ReplyDeleteContext. And timing. These are subtleties, admittedly. Still, I'd think you'd be capable of making distinctions. What was said, and when. But I guess you go with what you got.
No, the "right-wing commentator" is reporting what Dems are saying. Should be troubling to you.
ReplyDeleteDoes Geithner have help to do his job? Is the article wrong?
"Context. And timing. These are subtleties, admittedly."
Does that apply to Obama's gift to Brown, as well?
No, the "right-wing commentator" is reporting what Dems are saying. Should be troubling to you.
ReplyDeleteDoes Geithner have help to do his job? Is the article wrong?
"Context. And timing. These are subtleties, admittedly."
Does that apply to Obama's gift to Brown, as well?
Dang--why does it do that? I hit "publish", then it wanted me to enter the secret code word again (a different word, as though I got the first one wrong.) Sorry for the double--but I don't think it was my fault.
ReplyDeleteDoes Geithner have help to do his job? Is the article wrong?
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't the question you asked, originally.
Does that apply to Obama's gift to Brown, as well?
Do hummingbirds have feet?
Never mind--this makes the 'timing and context" clear. He does speak a little better than Obama.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czUPTHeYSyc&
Context.
ReplyDeleteTiming.
Sid,
ReplyDeleteYour point is...?
I think Gibbs expressed it very well, in the Obama context. He's the guy Obama thought most capable, right?
Is there a Treasury department yet? Why not? isn't it important? does Obama know how to be an executive? He's never shown it.