Originally Posted by spence
You're wanting an answer to your question and not the question I was answering.
The issue was on making excuses. I'd say they've both done it.
Perhaps, you're thinking of another thread. The "isssue" was not about "making excuses." I was answering your "context for my response was an assertion by RIJIMMY that Bush never blamed anyone else for his problems." Actually, RIJIMMY didn't say that, at least not in this thread. If it was about excuses . . . don't we all? And, if statements are true, they are not excuses. I think Jimmy's complaint was, not that Bush NEVER complained or blamed, but that Obama does it too much. We can expect some implied finger pointing from any POTUS, especially in reply to accusations. But a steady drumbeat sounds more like campaigning than explaining. Personally, I wouldn't complain about Obama's marketing strategy. If he doesn't succeed, it will all be hollow. And I have become less a Bush/Republican apologist (never was) and more awakened, like JOHNNYD, to see that they're all tramping on the Constitution. That I lean Republican and run from Democrat, is solely that the former shows the best hope, between the two, to drift back to Constitutional government. That's why I like the Tea Party movement, and hope it does not dissipate, but grows.
Bush was pretty consistent in remarking that 9/11 happened because previous administrations (Clinton/Reagan) actions made America look vulnerable. While there's probably some truth to that, it's also an excuse to distract from accusations the Whitehouse wasn't paying attention. Not to mention the whole "they hate us for our freedom" press campaign which was about as excuse heavy as they get.
I don't know what you mean by "pretty consistent in remarking." Is that implying that he harped on it and that he (not other republicans and commentators) specifically blamed Clinton or Reagan for 9/11? And, I don't think he said that Clinton/Reagan actions made America look vulnerable, but that incidents and responses in the past were viewed by Al Quaida as American weakness. He felt that his response to 9/11 corrected the erroneous view of the terrorists, not that Clinton/Reagan actions were weak. But that innefective Democrat/liberal/aided-by-Spence maketing can spin pretty gold into straw and an explanation into an excuse. And the "wasn't paying attention" comment could certainly be an "inherited" trait--9/11 was planned well before Bush took office, which, actually, wasn't very long before the attack occurred. And "they hate us for our freedom" certainly did not blame the previous Presidents.
Not sure I'd consider it a ploy, rather he's just trying to defend against those who would brand the economic woes on him personally.
I'd like to think he could do better, although he's also in quite a pickle. There's very little Obama can do, perhaps aside from another large stimulus, that would spur short-term growth in time to impact the election. And now that we've been through the credit circle jerk even that would likely be impossible. It will be interesting to hear his upcoming pitch on the subject, his reelection could hang on it.
He's also blamed rampant spending as well. I don't think he's ever said it's all Bush's fault.
Yeah, poor Obama, not much he can do. Of Course, Bush was to blame for a large portion of the problems that Obama can't do much about. It's amazing that one President can create problems that another can't fix. Yeah, his pitch should be interesting. More of that less than half capable marketing, would you say.
Well, yes and no.
A budget doesn't have to include all liabilities like a balance sheet would. So technically speaking Clinton did balance the budget, but just not with a long-term plan to pay the debts.
Yeah, technically, but not really.
Because of the war and the timing of the second recession. McCain wasn't in charge for either of these and had no plan to address any differently than Bush would, yet Bush generated a more emotional response from the electorate. Play to win...
Yeah, use that ineffective less than half the power of Republican marketing to defeat that so much more powerful marketing.
There are multiple issues here to judge. Was Iraq the proper strategic play?
So far, it appears Iraq was the most easily accessible Muslim Middle East nation susceptible to a democratic form of government.
Was the war justified to the American people?
It must have been, he got re-elected.
Was the war executed well?
As well as most.
I would say that deficit spending, short-term'ism and revenue generation are all big problems.
Much less of a problem under a U.S. Constitution form of government. But for an overbloated, Central Government taking on responsibiblites that the Constitution reserves to the States and the people, yeah--massive problems. Problems that most likely will grow. That is the nature of near unlimited power. It cannot be stopped. Nor does it freely give up its power.
To say that spending is "the"problem ignores the realities of the current situation. Even if we pass massive spending cuts there will still be projected deficits for the next decade+.
Yeah, it takes time to unwind this big ball of unconstitutional mess.
Spending cuts, revenue generation and other means to encourage business growth should all be on the table.
That's all wonkish, status quo system, jibberjabber. Just more winding threads around the big messy ball. More government intervention and growth and forced dependance of us to its usurped power to "fix."
Perhaps your assertion he's running against Bush is a product of effective marketing?
-spence
|
Threaded Mode