Bush: ‘I want the President to succeed.’
Bush: ‘I want the President to succeed.’
Former Vice President Dick Cheney seized an opportunity to attack President Obama during an interview on CNN last Sunday, saying Obama’s policies “raise the risk” of another terror attack in the U.S. Offering more class than his former VP, former President Bush yesterday declined to criticize Obama. In a seeming rebuke to Cheney, Bush said, “I love my country a lot more than I love politics,” he said:
“He was not my first choice for president, but, when he won, I thought it was good for the United States of America,” Mr. Bush said.
“I want the President to succeed,” he added, “I love my country a lot more than I love politics…I’m not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in that arena,” he continued.
Bush said that Obama “deserves my silence and if he wants my help he can pick up the phone and call me,” adding, “I think it is essential that he be helped in office.” Bush’s desire to see Obama succeed stands in stark contrast to many of his Republican friends on Capitol Hill and their leader, Rush Limbaugh. Will Limbaugh criticize Bush for not sharing his hope that Obama fails?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Classiest thing that guy has ever said in public.
Must be havin a heckuva time raisin’ liebrary money.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:31 pmi don’t give a good goddamn what this assmonkey has to say.
not now, not ever.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:33 pmDid someone sock-puppet Bush?
WTF?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:37 pmMy dog was perfectly healthy so I cut off all four of his legs and sold them to the doggie-donor clinic.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:38 pmI love my dog a lot more than my cat.
Hey Archie:
March 18th, 2009 at 12:40 pmPoop & then smell it much?
While sober and seeing the mess he’s caused here and around the World it makes since for Bush to want Obama to succeed. That would lift the weight of seeing continued signs of Hate Bush all around the World. Bush might hope that the International Court will by pass charging him with War Crimes. Yes many Republican supporting of Bush got no help from him as they have lost jobs, homes and life savings. It’s the Republican way to hurt Democrats but Bush has hurt his own base and now President Obama has come to help them too. Big difference in Bush/Obama as Bush was only for himself, the rich and his circle of friends. While Obama is a President for all the American people.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:42 pmRush will say something along the lines of this is what Bush had to say being the upstanding guy he is. Rush won’t attack Bush.
Although, it would be to his advantage to attack Bush. All Rush needs to do is to keep his core listeners foaming at the mouth and the 400 million dollar man will please his boss’. Rush has no other motive than his wallet.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:44 pmArchie B: Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:46 pmArchie B Says:
spearNmagicHelmet .
Party before country, much?
___________
Naaaah… mebbe it’s just more a … general disgust on humanitarian terms…
March 18th, 2009 at 12:47 pmArchie B Says:
spearNmagicHelmet .
Party before country, much?
*
arch?
**
“the French don’t have a word for entrepeneur.”
-George W. Bush
**
and don’t you forget it.
:)
March 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pm.
Dear Archie B
Please…
… Name the redeeming quality to LYING TO THE SENATE
… Name the redeeming quality to USURPING THE CONSTITUTION
… Name the redeeming quality to OUTING A COVERT CIA AGENT
… Name the redeeming quality to WARS OF AGGRESSION
… Name the redeeming quality to KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE
… Name the redeeming quality to SENDING US SERVICEMEN TO THEIR DEATHS
… Name the redeeming quality to FOMENTING AGGRESSIONS/TERRORISM
… Name the redeeming quality to TORTURE
Who’s the “sock” you (R)ush breath!
.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pmGee… could it possibly be that the Bush who ran this country into the ground was simply George W. under Dick’s thumb, and that this demonstration of class is actually the result of his release from Dick’s “influence”?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:49 pmWell, I’m glad that he at least went the route of least resistance. Really, if he didn’t call for Obama’s success, he might have gotten his approval ratings into the single digits.
Of course, to us Bush’s popularity rating is and will always be an imaginative number.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:49 pmYou did not win GW, the have-mores won, Katherine Harris and Jeb helped you steal the elections in 2000. The supreme court put you in the white house. And, of course, America lost! You better wish this president succeeds, considering you failed and your criminal war failed and so did your economic policy!
March 18th, 2009 at 12:50 pmKnowing that this chump has a penchant for lying.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:52 pmWhy should we believe him?
Bush. Traitor. Nuff said.
This collection of words coming out of this face makes me want to ask just one question: why didn’t this pod person take him over, oh, say 8 years ago?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:52 pmThe body snatchers are here. That has to be a pod person saying those things.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pmYou probably got something there. Methinks that maybe, just maybe, Bush realised he was nothing but a pawn of Cheney’s very late into the 2nd term. Remember, Bush did not pardon Scooter Libby, which many expected (including me), which infuriated Cheney. In fact, Bush hardly pardoned anyone at all if I remember right.
Cheney is acting like an embittered ex-president. In some ways, he is.
Not saying we should start feeling sorry for Bush, who acted like a petulant, arrogant ass for 8 years and nearly destroyed the country, but he could be telling Cheney to go Cheney himself.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:54 pmThis is Bush W’s part of the bargain he cut with Obama to NOT prosecute him for war crimes
March 18th, 2009 at 12:54 pmEl Rushbutt and company have already thrown Dubya under the bus … even while defending all the Dubya/Rethuglican actions of the last eight years. Consistency is a difficult task for them, though, ofttimes even within a single sentence.
Cheers,
March 18th, 2009 at 12:54 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Gee… could it possibly be that the Bush who ran this country into the ground was simply George W. under Dick’s thumb, and that this demonstration of class is actually the result of his release from Dick’s “influence”?
Actually, i think that is a very interesting question. Bush seems WAY too incompetent to manage all the scheming that had gone on… and Cheney was way too involved in… oh, everything. However, even IF that were true, Bush is still culpable as a willing accessory.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:55 pmBUBBLE: ” . . he can pick up the phone and call me.”
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
March 18th, 2009 at 12:56 pmBush said something classy? Something good?
There’s your proof, people:
he’s back on the bottle.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:56 pmCC n VS,
March 18th, 2009 at 12:56 pmInteresting theory. But I believe the “pod” people were exact duplicates including traits and personalities. The were just evil aliens as well. Sooo…
Could also be that the larger Bush family is feeling a little let down by Uncle Dick, who did everything else he was supposed to, but did not secure a favorable legacy for his ward.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pmComing from George W. Bush, this means absolutely nothing.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:05 pmBush probably understands better than most of how difficult it is to get something done when you’re faced with difficult opposition.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pmSo…even Bush now realizes that the best thing he can do for the country is to STFU? Sheesh, finally.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm“Yeah,” says a slightly liquored GW on the phone, “You see Mr. Preznit… hey, can i just call you ‘Big-O”? It’s so much easier. But what you gotta do is go have a beer with the people, and then cut the taxes, espescially on the corporations and stuff — just listen to the lobby people… they bring you fun stuff to keep all for yourself and all… they’ll tell ya’ what ta do. And make sure you deregulate as much as possible because that gubbernmint interference with stuff causes trouble and stuff.”
GW then wanders his conversation off into old stories of his glory days of cheerleading and the national guard. Then he laments the short time he had in office and all the plans that he never got to fulfill, which he heartily reccomends in great and agonizing detail. At lenght, after 4 3/4 hours of talking on the phone, he concludes, “So, Big-O, I hope that you understand that I am all about country first, and I don’t give a pile of old chopped brush about politicin’ any more. And, you know, I could use some money for my library project that’s all about me. I’ll even put in a “first negro in the white house” section, with colored books and all. Good night, and good luck.”
As soon as GW placed the phone back on the receiver, an angry 5 year old snatched back his toy phone and glared at GW, long and hard. Gw drooled a little and snorted a line of coke while humming the tune to Benny Hill.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:07 pmThe thing that’s truly tragic, is that we live in a social climate where this f ucktard feels like he has to verbalize such a sentiment.
Normally, we all hope a president succeeds — until the idiot wingnuts started proclaiming “I hope Obama fails!”
March 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pmMatt, you tell us?
If having your party control the congress is easy, why all the fuss about these guys:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/18/bayh-witness-protection/
March 18th, 2009 at 1:28 pmb-cup says:
irrelevant and non sequitur
March 18th, 2009 at 1:30 pmThe idea that Democrats supported Bush is fantasy.
Here’s a google for democrats oppose Bush, just to refresh our memories:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=democrats+oppose+bush&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
March 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pmIt’s a Fox poll, but does it show that Democrats were supporting the President?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/09/flashback-poll-showed-democrats-wanted-bush-fail/
March 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pmObama faces far bigger problems than Bush II ever did. If it was treason to question Bush II, it’s treason to question Obama. We should be emphasizing this.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pmbackup Says:
What “opposition” did herr dubyah have? You mean those 6 straight years of a GOPig majority?
Matt, you tell us?
If having your party control the congress is easy, why all the fuss about these guys:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2009/ 03/ 18/ bayh-witness-protection/
If having your party is so difficult why don’t you provide some evidence that bush didn’t get exactly what he wanted from the repubs and those spinless dems?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pmPoor ArchMoron. No brain, no game, all stupidity all the time troll. What a pathetic loser you are Arch
March 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pmOnce again, b-cup misses the point.
Speaking only for myself, I was not happy when GWB “won” the presidency in 2000, but I hoped it would be a quiet 4 years and he’d go away. I never hoped that he would fail, because that wish extends to the entire country. After he f ucked up the 9/11 warnings and response, I knew we were up shit creek without a paddle, but still I didn’t hope he would fail (see above reason). I did not support most of his policies, and hoped Congress would keep them from passing — but that does not equate to hoping for the personal failure of GWB.
I won’t bother to stick around to see if you can tease out the difference.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pmSo what did bush want from the repubs for 6 years or the dems for two that he didn’t get? Seriously, name one thing he didn’t get.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pmWas it wrong when Carville hoped Bush wouldn’t succeed:
http://townhall.com/blog/g/d9f39313-f2c1-4251-9818-c5b86dac20c5
March 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pmI’m not saying Bush didn’t get what he wanted. What I’m saying is that Democrats didn’t lay down and cheer him on. Which is what Democratic pundits suggest we should all do for Obama.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:37 pmralph’s right backup.
what did bush ask for
that his party denied him?
::
backup,
straight up, arch, greta and
her husband are scientologitsts…
are you a scientologist too?
**
don’t be afraid to answer,
my friend, remember,
“to know life one must live life…”
:|
March 18th, 2009 at 1:38 pmbackup Says:
If having your party is so difficult why don’t you provide some evidence that bush didn’t get exactly what he wanted from the repubs and those spinless dems?
I’m not saying Bush didn’t get what he wanted. What I’m saying is that Democrats didn’t lay down and cheer him on. Which is what Democratic pundits suggest we should all do for Obama.
*
which one(s) suggested that?
backup i’ve noticed that you use
scientology tactics in you comments.
very interesting.
**
thank you, my friend.
…
March 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pmwatchdog spouts nothing but apologia:
March 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Get back under your bridge, troll — and take backup with you.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pm“I’m not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in that arena,” he continued.
This is nothing new. Bush has spent his entire political career playing nice cop while sending out his hoards of ravening attack dogs to do his dirty work. The media always painted him as “taking the high road”. I always found it cowardly and dishonest.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pmwatchdog Says:
Plain STUPID watchdog. Clearly you are a brainwashed cell of the Limborg hivemind. Rush pulls out that ignorant canard everytime HE says something stupid. I was baiting you. Ya fell for it hook line and sinker. I didnt think ANYONE was stupid enough to think that made sense. Rush said multiple times he WANTED OBAMA TO FAIL PERIOD. Dont waste your time telling us what YOU think makes sense which seems to be lets keep doing the VERY THINGS THAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS. Yeah lets see Nobel Prize winners in economics like Krugman and Stiglitz say this IS the thing to do and an anonymous poster of a website says NO. Where did you get your degreee in economics? When did YOU last win the Nobel Prize? Spare us your repitition of whatever the screechmonkeys that do your thinking for you are having you regurgitate today. The grownups are in charge and you are irrelvant.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pmfckup,
Are you really that stupid or just play stupid on the net?
Opposition? Fox News poll? STFU.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pmoh my, backup you have opened
up a can of worms with your first lie
of the day, haven’t you my friend?
…
March 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pmbackup Says:
Bush probably understands better than most of how difficult it is to get something done when you’re faced with difficult opposition.
Uh…what did Bush get done in those “eight” years that he faced opposition? What’s your opinion on “Git ‘r Done” when it comes to Bush? What did he succeed at?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:45 pmZooey. I don’t understand how Democrats opposed to Bush policy would hope that it would succeed. But, I believe you are genuine in what you say.
I believe there is a miscommunication going on.
I don’t see how or why anyone would hope for policies that they disagree with, to be successfully implemented. Otherwise, no one would waste time or effort, opposing anybody in power. They would just support them and hope for their success.
I think those that are saying they hope Obama fails are hoping that he is not successful implementing policies that they disagree with. Policies they think are bad for America.
That is different than hoping that Obama is not successful in making conditions in America better.
The more an individual believes that success for our country depends on the success of Obama passing progressive policies, the more likely that individual is to see the hope for Obama failure as a hope for American failure.
Conversely, if an individual believes that Obama’s policies are wrong for America, the more reasonable the hope for Obama’s failure seems to be.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pmShorter Bush – “Don’t bring me to trial for my War Crimes, pretty please.”
March 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pmwatchdog Says:
I am speechless !
March 18th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Mission Accomplished.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pmI find myself believing W.
Not that I like him but after years of most everyone wanting him to fail he should be traumatized to the point that he doesn’t want the next guy to fail.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pmBeing speechless would be a dramatic improvement in your debating skills.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pmbackup,
i would never buy
a used car from you.
**
sorry my friend but
you really are a scientologist.
:(
March 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pmbackup Says:
Zooey. I don’t understand….
March 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Yeah, that’s just you, isn’t it?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:52 pmralph,
backup practices in the craft
of double speak and pretzel logic.
**
in other words he copies and pastes
from his copy of dianetics.
:|
March 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pmwatchdog Says:
EugeneDebs Says:
——————————————————————————–
watchdog Says:
Plain STUPID watchdog. Clearly you are a brainwashed cell of the Limborg hivemind. Rush pulls out that ignorant canard everytime HE says something stupid. I was baiting you. Ya fell for it hook line and sinker. I didnt think ANYONE was stupid enough to think that made sense. Rush said multiple times he WANTED OBAMA TO FAIL PERIOD. Dont waste your time telling us what YOU think makes sense which seems to be lets keep doing the VERY THINGS THAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS. Yeah lets see Nobel Prize winners in economics like Krugman and Stiglitz say this IS the thing to do and an anonymous poster of a website says NO. Where did you get your degreee in economics? When did YOU last win the Nobel Prize? Spare us your repitition of whatever the screechmonkeys that do your thinking for you are having you regurgitate today. The grownups are in charge and you are irrelvant.
Things that’s got us into this mess like what? Debt? Government spending?
*
doggie
you are like backup in many ways
but you are much smarter.
:)
March 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pmI thought you were speechless. Oh well, to answer your ignorant question, it was deregulation and war.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:55 pmBush is actually a level headed guy, its a shame the liberal media made him look like a monster all because kerry lost. I’m sure he knows the smart, honest, hard working people of America will appreciate what he did for this great nation.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:55 pmA simple man Says:
Bush is actually a level headed guy, its a shame the liberal media made him look like a monster all because kerry lost. I’m sure he knows the smart, honest, hard working people of America will appreciate what he did for this great nation.
*
he gave us backup.
but he also gave us you.
is that what you’re trying to say?
…
March 18th, 2009 at 1:56 pmWhich was…?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:57 pmA simple man Says:
I’m sure he knows the smart, honest, hard working people of America will appreciate what he did for this great nation.
Those of them who haven’t lost a son or daughter in Bush’s Wacky Iraqi Adventure, at least.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:57 pmSo b-cup offers a Faux News poll from six years into Bush’s presidency to compare with the first 100 days of Obama’s, and a Townhall “gotcha!” piece painfully short on context to excuse Republicans’ hopes for the president to fail in a crisis.
Troll flag today, eh, b-cup?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:58 pmmy post back around #65.
Which of the points do you disagree with?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pmYes, b-cup. The “miscommunication” can be traced to your ever-shifting definitions and focus.
The fact that you choose nakedly partisan sources for “support” either demonstrates a lack of better options or an appalling inability to gauge your audience.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pmbackup Says:
my post back around #65.
Which of the points do you disagree with?
*
could you be a any less friendly?
do your own work for a change, my friend.
…
March 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pmI know my audience. If my focus is shifting, it’s an attempt to find a way to make you understand.
Let me try this:
If Democrats wanted Bush to succeed, what has been the purpose of ThinkProgress?
If progressives wanted Bush to succeed, why highlight problems with Bush policy. Troop deaths, Abu Ghraib, wiretapping, waterboarding, abstinence only, stem cell research, surge opposition, no child left behind, etc.
The list goes on and on and on.
So, if Democrats wanted Bush to succeed, why point out problems with Bush’s policies?
By pointing out those problems, weren’t progressives aware that it would make it more difficult for those policies to succeed.
The success that progressives claim to support?
I don’t get it.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:07 pmHoly cow, that was impressive.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:09 pmDo you agree we face an economic crisis no less threatening than the atmosphere immediately following 9/11?
Bullshit. You’ve tried this dodge many, many times before. You imply that, should Obama succeed in implementing those policies (which he likely will, working with a Democratic Congress), then the opposition is at an end? That “implementing policies” is the limit of the opposition?
Also bullshit. Whether Obama implements the offending policies or not, if conditions in America get better, Obama will get the credit. Is this something the Right can abide, do you suppose?
Doesn’t mean that “hope for Obama failure” is NOT ‘hope for America’s failure”.
One could just as easily (and perhaps with more justification) say the reverse.
Again, this doesn’t mean the perception is correct.
Just like the War on Terror — Bush’s failure meant the nation’s failure.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pmThanks for your condescension, b-cup.
I think we understand your game, pretty well. You’ve stated your case dozens of times here, and no one has bought a penny’s worth of it.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:13 pmwags Says:
I know my audience. If my focus is shifting, it’s an attempt to find a way to make you understand.
Let me try this:
If Democrats wanted Bush to succeed, what has been the purpose of ThinkProgress?
Holy cow, that was impressive.
*
nice job wags.
backup shot down by his own words.
backup claims to know his audience but
the real question is this: does he know himself?
***
March 18th, 2009 at 2:14 pmAm I starting to see something of Shakespearian tragedy unfold here? Irony and all?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:15 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
backup Says:
I know my audience. If my focus is shifting, it’s an attempt to find a way to make you understand.
Thanks for your condescension, b-cup.
I think we understand your game, pretty well. You’ve stated your case dozens of times here, and no one has bought a penny’s worth of it.
***
no not even watchdog or simple man.
and they’re twice as smart as backup.
:|
March 18th, 2009 at 2:15 pmchomot Says:
Am I starting to see something of Shakespearian tragedy unfold here? Irony and all?
*
perhaps a g(r)eek tragedy…?
___
March 18th, 2009 at 2:17 pmHere’s the problem. Since you want to go back to 2001, Bush and the rest of the Republicans told us that gigantic tax cuts for the super wealthy would increase revenue. Now, I’m no financial genius, but anyone who thought that would work is a complete dumbass. For most of us with more than a couple of functioning brain cells to rub together, it had nothing to do with whether we hoped Bush would succeed or fail. WE KNEW IT WAS A SCAM WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO FAIL AND MAKE LOTS OF RICH PEOPLE A LOT RICHER!
Just because the idiot Republican base bought this ridiculous scheme from their cynical leaders, doesn’t mean it had a chance to succeed.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pmdoc,
backup only “pretends”
when he is claiming to
tell the truth. at all other
times he can be trusted.
within limits.
::
March 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pmPerhaps b-cup could explain how the president could fail to implement his policies and the nation’s condition could still improve?
Just by magic? By the invisible hand of the freemarket? Prayer?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:19 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Perhaps b-cup could explain how the president could fail to implement his policies and the nation’s condition could still improve?
Just by magic? By the invisible hand of the freemarket? Prayer?
*
dianetics.
…
March 18th, 2009 at 2:22 pmIf tax cuts for the wealthy worked so well why are we in the mess we are in today? Tax cuts for the wealthy during a time of war….brilliant, meanwhile we have a trillion dollar debt with communist China…brilliant! Screw the republicans and their cries of socialism, they didn’t seem to mind that fascism didn’t work. Yet they want President Obama to continue their failed policies. You pr*cks on the right have been using scary words like socialism and communism since the 1930’s and I still haven’t seen our country turn into a socialist or communist country. Get with the Obama program to recovery or get the hell out of the country!
March 18th, 2009 at 2:27 pmThat’s simple. All of those things, which were largely being ignored or misrepresented by the mainstream news media were in the process of ruining the country. Ignoring what was happening right before our very eyes was not going to allow those awful policies to somehow become magically successful. We were highlighting those things because they had to be stopped before we were completely destroyed.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:28 pmApparently, for b-cup, ‘highlighting problems with policy” is the same thing as “wanting the president to fail”.
Judging from the arguments b-cup puts forth, any opposition at all to the president is the same thing as wanting him to fail.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:33 pmis edward m. liddy
backup?
you be the judge.
***
March 18th, 2009 at 2:37 pmralph. There is an idea that economies cycle – irrespective of government intervention. There is also an idea that it is tax cuts and not substantial government spending that helps spur economic growth or recovery.
You may not agree with those ideas. You have a lot of good reasons to believe what you believe.
Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize, but then again, so does Milton Friedman.
Just because you don’t believe the ideas of the opposition, doesn’t mean that the opposition don’t believe them.
If the opposition really believes that Obama’s proposals or spending will harm the country, they not only have a right, but an obligation to object. To not want those ideas to succeed. To fail.
Because, in their minds, those ’successes’ will lead to a more dire circumstance.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pmToo bad you didn’t follow the courage of your convictions and go die in one of his wars.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pmbackup Says:
Perhaps b-cup could explain how the president could fail to implement his policies and the nation’s condition could still improve?
ralph. There is an idea that economies cycle – irrespective of government intervention. There is also an idea that it is tax cuts and not substantial government spending that helps spur economic growth or recovery.
You may not agree with those ideas. You have a lot of good reasons to believe what you believe.
Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize, but then again, so does Milton Friedman.
Just because you don’t believe the ideas of the opposition, doesn’t mean that the opposition don’t believe them.
If the opposition really believes that Obama’s proposals or spending will harm the country, they not only have a right, but an obligation to object. To not want those ideas to succeed. To fail.
Because, in their minds, those ’successes’ will lead to a more dire circumstance.
*
hung by his own words.
backup is edward m. liddy!
::
March 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pmdon’t ever buy a used car from backup.
don’t buy anything from backup.
he is a liar and a con artist.
like this man.
!!!
March 18th, 2009 at 2:45 pmjoe. I don’t think the bonuses should be paid.
But, I obviously don’t have any authority in the matter.
What’s more interesting is the response from the administration. The administration that has authority.
Will the administration allow the bonuses to be paid?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:45 pmYeah, b-cup… that idea has pretty much been de-bunked, don’t ya think?
Unless Bush raised taxes in the last few years…
Or unless Clinton cut taxes in the nineties….
Offering discredited right-wing economic policy isn’t really a viable answer, b-cup. If America wanted to keep trying that gambit, we would have elected John McCain.
But… basically you’re saying that we’re in a natural “down cycle”, Bush economic policies had nothing to do with getting us here, and if we do nothing, the economy will recover as quickly as it deteriorated, as long as we keep pursuing the same policies that definitely did not get us here in the first place?
Do I have that about right, b-cup?
Well… i guess that’s why Republicans continue to offer nothing but obstructionism.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:45 pmHey, you know what, b-cup?
There is an idea that democracy can be exported to other cultures at teh point of a gun.
How about we try that one again, too, huh?
It’s gotta work one of these times.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pmNo backup is one of the remaining 30%ers who still have their lips firmly planted on bUSH’S a$$. The country could have fallen into a deep depression, our troops could have all been captured or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan under bUSH and idiots like backup and Archie would still be cheer leading for bUSH. Why? Because they are sooooooooooo blind and stooopid
March 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pmif the opposition really believes that Obama’s proposals or spending will harm the country, they not only have a right, but an obligation to object. To not want those ideas to succeed. To fail.
Because, in their minds, those ’successes’ will lead to a more dire circumstance.
Except for the fact that it’s largely their policies that got us in this mess in the first place. That makes their “concern about the economy” merely a political tool to return them to power.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pmbackup Says:
joe. I don’t think the bonuses should be paid.
But, I obviously don’t have any authority in the matter.
What’s more interesting is the response from the administration. The administration that has authority.
Will the administration allow the bonuses to be paid?
*
you forgot the link.
::
just trying to help, ed.
:)
March 18th, 2009 at 2:54 pmbarfly, we all take this for granted, but it wasn’t until just a few minutes ago that i realized b-cup doesn’t believe that Bush policies had anything to do with our current situation. He can’t believe it. otherwise he wouldn’t make the argument he just made.
He must actually believe that we’re in a natural down cycle and Bush was just unlucky.
Funny how it’s almost always Republican presidents who are unlucky with the economy that way, huh?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:56 pmLimba will rip into bush – he will eviserate bush! you watch…
March 18th, 2009 at 2:57 pmbackup,
this is called a link.
try it.
:)
March 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pmhere’s a quote,
“Dr. Parker drew the following conclusions regarding the claim that Republican presidencies are “best” for the U.S. economy:
But we can reasonably conclude that these government statistics provide evidence that directly contradicts the argument that the economy does better on average under Republican administrations. With lagged effects and other causes considered, the difference may be insignificant, but the economy may actually perform worse under Republicans.”
**
informed, intelligent dialogue
can be achieved backup when
one is commenting not from bigotry
and fear but from reason and intelligence.
try it sometime my friend.
:)
March 18th, 2009 at 3:06 pmI think congress passed a revenue act raising taxes in 1932. Hoover signed it. Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932
March 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pmFrom the link:
March 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Additionally:
A rate of 13.75 percent was levied on the net income of corporations.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
WTF does that mean, b-cup???
March 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pmresponse to rhf, my bad. Here’s his statement:
March 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Are you trying to tie that to your argument somehow?
If so, you left out a few steps.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pmFrom Hoover’s wikipedia.
The idea that Hoover prolonged or caused the Great Depression because he didn’t intervene, may not be correct.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pmYou are aware, aren’t you, b-cup, that the revenue bill you mention was passed and signed THREE YEARS after the Depression began?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pmFrom Hoover’s bio on wiki:
Congress, not Hoover was the driving force there.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pmOh, Jeezus… now b-cup is reduced to defending Herbert Hoover, using wikipedia as an authoritative source of analysis.
You just have no idea what to do, do ya, b-cup?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pmNicely done, wags.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:15 pmI wonder why b-cup left that stuff out, wags?
Could it be because it undercut the flimsy argument he was trying to build out of mud and bits of straw?
I think that’s possible.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:16 pmHoover was trying governmental solutions to the economic problems. The debate becomes was it too little, too late (as progressives would charge) or mistaken attempts at intervention to begin with (as capitalists would argue).
wikipedia.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:16 pmContext never hurt anyone.
And I don’t think anyone here has said ‘Hoover caused the Great Depression”, just that his policies failed to address the causes or even symptoms.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:17 pmHe’s really doing it. He’s really trying to shift the argument to a debate over Hoover’s policies, using wikipedia as an authoritative source for historical analysis.
The mind boggles.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pmAh yes, the old “economic cycle”. To Republicans economics is like religion. The cave men couldn’t understand lightning, so they made up a god for it. Fundamentalist Christians can’t understand evolution, so they believe god made the Earth in six days. Republican economics have failed everytime they have been implemented ove the past 150 years, so they blame it on some myteriously recurring “economic cycle”, which just happens to turn down whenever a Republican is in the White House.
Maybe they are right, and God is telling us to stop electing Republicans.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:20 pmb-cup is like one of those great improv actors who can weave an incredible performance around a button or a bit of string.
Except b-cup never gets us to suspend disbelief, and that’s the whole game, isn’t it?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:20 pmbackup,
you just got backed up.
and quoting out of context?
that is just sad.
___
March 18th, 2009 at 3:21 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
b-cup is like one of those great improv actors who can weave an incredible performance around a button or a bit of string.
Except b-cup never gets us to suspend disbelief, and that’s the whole game, isn’t it?
***
he uses ted haggard argumentation.
it works on the flock.
but it fails on the rest of us.
**
March 18th, 2009 at 3:24 pmIt is sad, joe, but f you can just step back and marvel at what b-cup is able to do with just a folding chair as a prop –
he has taken a losing argument, in which he seemed to say that Bush’s policies had nothing to do with the economic downturn and would be the salvation of the economy, and he has spun around on that folding chair to launch a rehabilitation attempt of Hoover’s legacy.
OOPS! The folding chair just collapsed. Bummer.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:24 pmHow does that contadict what I said?
And if the taxes were raised, why does it matter?
I don’t think anyones really interested in cheerleading for Hoover. The idea is, does government intervention fix economic problems. And, what is the effect of tax policy on economic recovery?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pmI want Bush/Chnney & Co., specially Rice, to be prosecuted for WAR CRIMES! No wishy washy “Truth omission/commission”. If Obama does not prosecute or does not facilitate prosecution, there will be no “restoring America’s International moral reputation”. Sum that with the economic FIASCO, no one will ever TRUST the USA again!
March 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pmIf b-cup can accomplish this much distraction with a folding chair, imagine what he could do with a cape!
March 18th, 2009 at 3:28 pmThose pom-poms in your hands say different.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pmralph,
we know he’s a troll.
but with that hoover canard
one can only hope that he
is also a highly placed republican
campaign strategist as well.
*
oh happy day!
**
March 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pmbackup Says:
Congress, not Hoover was the driving force there.
How does that contadict what I said?
And if the taxes were raised, why does it matter?
I don’t think anyones really interested in cheerleading for Hoover. The idea is, does government intervention fix economic problems. And, what is the effect of tax policy on economic recovery?
*
you’re getting sloppy.
“I don’t think anyones really interested in cheerleading for Hoover.”
makes no sense. i won’t even try to guess what you’re trying to say.
and,
“…does government intervention fix economic problems.”
needs a question mark (?).
“And, what is the effect of tax policy on economic recovery?”
and, once and for all, answer your own freaking questions for a change.
**
if you care, you’ll try harder.
___
March 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pmjoe, cut b-cup some slack. Do you know how much concentration it takes to mime that a folding chair is actually a Greyhound bus?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:38 pmOh snap! Better watch it W. Now you may have to go and apologize to Rush…
Lets see if the almighty ElRushbo call out his main man on this on. If not, everyone will know where his phoney outrage really lies…
March 18th, 2009 at 3:41 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
joe, cut b-cup some slack. Do you know how much concentration it takes to mime that a folding chair is actually a Greyhound bus?
**
then he throws himself under it.
*
but it is fun to watch him slide
down his shame spiral.
**
let’s get ready for another one of
his goofy comments!
:p
March 18th, 2009 at 3:42 pmWhat was your point again?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:42 pmAh, wags has encountered the true heart of the b-cup experience.
It’s not you, wags.
It’s him.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pmNaturally. Maybe he needs to shift again to ‘make me understand”.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:57 pmGuess he’s not working for Cheney anymore. He said what a former president should say under the circumstance. Considering the source, though, I can’t help but wonder if his dad put him up to it, or if he did it in exchange for a donation to his stupid library.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:14 pmDear former Mr. President,
As an Obama supporter, I appreciate your support of our new President. I also want to wish you the best of success in your own new career as an inmate of the Texas Institute for the Criminally Insane. Say Hello to Tom DeLay for us.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:21 pmwatchdog Says:
Things that’s got us into this mess like what? Debt? Government spending?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Massive tax cuts for the Rich. Deregulation mania. Fighting useless wars. Not investing in our infrastructure. Things like that. Everyone would like to see less spending but we are hemoraging jobs. We lost more than a million of them in the last two months alone. We have to do something ELSE.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:27 pmA simple man Says:
Bush is actually a level headed guy, its a shame the liberal media made him look like a monster all because kerry lost. I’m sure he knows the smart, honest, hard working people of America will appreciate what he did for this great nation.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
WOW this is delusional on so many levels. First there is NO liberal media not if you mean the media overall is liberal thats ludicrou. Remember the run up to the war and how lockstep the media was behind it while liberals were opposing it or the way they tried to burry the Downing Street memo? You go to world class delusion when you say they attacked him because Kerry lost. That is just ludicrous on the face of it. Are you really making the argument the media went after Bush because they preferred Kerry and the LIES to start a needless war the incompetence shown by Katrina the Exposing of a CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction, the moribund economy just to pull a few things off the top of my head had nothing to do with media criticism of Bush? Let me introduce you to a nice place it is called PLANET EARTH. You really ought to visit us here some day. What the American people appreciate is the incompetent boob is GONE.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:45 pmYou guys are right. I’m trying to do too many things today. I can’t give you the attention that you deserve.
I think the question of whether stimulus and government intervention worked in the 30’s is very pertinent to our situation today.
I think that those efforts at intervention were ongoing in the late 20’s and continued throughout the 30’s. The question is, did they work?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:51 pmWe don’t want your attention, nor do we deserve it.
Yeah, I’m a little fuzzy on that whole ‘New Deal’ thing myself. I mean, ending the Great Depression was all well and good, but who can say if it really worked?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:57 pmGood point, wags. Perhaps if Roosevelt had just left well enough alone, and not tried to put people back to work, everything would have worked out fine. Right, b-cup?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pmi have to agree with wags
on this one backup.
you can go away forever.
you will not be missed.
goodbye.
:|
March 18th, 2009 at 5:14 pmIt seems we have to keep re-educating backchump on the Great Depression every couple of days. I showed him that the GNP doubled between 1933 and 1937, which is probably record growth for a 4 year period, but he has already forgotten that fact.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:02 pmI’m sick to death of hearing this “question that was never asked except on Fox” about the New Deal.
Outside of Fox News there has never been a question about the New Deal working…
Complete Historical Ignorance is the one thing that can surely undo America, and Fox is the one sure way to achieve it.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:22 pm“I want the President to succeed,” he added, “I love my country a lot more than I love politics…
wow.
i must say, on first instinct, thank you.
hope it sticks…
March 18th, 2009 at 6:49 pmbackup,
Your chiropractor called to confirm your appointment for next Tuesday to work on that whiplash.
No x-ray necessary, he’ll just hold you up to the light so he can see the kinks.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pmshoeless. I acknowledged your graph. But, it’s not a debate ender.
There seems to be plenty of experts here. What possessed FDR’s Treasury Secretary to say this:
That doesn’t sound like the sentiment of an administration that is confident that government intervention has worked.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:14 pmWhat possessed Morgenthau to say such a thing? perhaps because he was one of Roosevelt’s advisors who ad pressed him in 1937 to cut back spending and try to balance the budget, measures that reversed the previous few years of growth and led to the Recession of 1937.
You’re fond of wikipedia, so here’s a couple of select quotes for ya:
The Roosevelt Administration was under assault during FDR’s second term, which presided over a new dip in the Great Depression in the fall of 1937 that continued through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938. Keynesian economists speculated that this was a result of a premature effort to curb government spending and balance the budget
[snip]
Roosevelt rejected the advice of Morgenthau to cut spending and decided big business were trying to ruin the New Deal by causing another depression that voters would react against by voting Republican.
A 1995 survey of economic historians asked whether “Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression.” Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed ‘with provisos’ (what provisos the survey does not state) and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, only 27% agreed and 73% disagreed.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:27 pmMore on the 1937 Recession:
The Recession of 1937, sometimes called the Roosevelt Recession, was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery, which occurred in 1937-38. It was part of the Great Depression in the United States, and had serious political results, and helped strengthen the new Conservative Coalition led by Senators Robert A. Taft and Richard B. Russell. Economic historians have not agreed on the causes [1], but many of the causes show that because the New Deal involved spending money from the Federal budget, President Roosevelt had to end New Deal spending, and thus programs, as a result. In addition to lowering spending, Roosevelt raised taxes in order to balance the budget.
[snip]
By 1936, all the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high, although it was considerably lower than the 25% unemployment rate seen in 1933. In 1937, the American economy took an unexpected downturn, lasting through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938. In two months, unemployment rose from 5 million to over 9 million, reaching almost 12 million in early 1938. Manufacturing output fell off by 40% from the 1937 peak; it was back to 1934 levels. Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. In most sectors hourly earnings continued to rise throughout the recession, which partly compensated for the reduction in the number of hours worked. As unemployment rose, consumers’ expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:29 pmbackup,
we were hoping you had taken your cherry picked quotes,
your phony socratic questions and your general silliness
and gone galt on us.
too much to hope for, i guess.
*
if what you have to offer has any value at all you would be missed.
if not no one would notice or care about your absence
and you’d be recognized for what you really are; a dilettante.
(my money is on the latter.)
*
a challenge. do you have the courage to test your
ideas and opinions on the open market place? or would rather keep
foisting them on people willy nilly?
*
good luck, my friend.
:)
March 18th, 2009 at 8:58 pmAlright ralph. The poll of historians sounds good. I acknowledge that shoeless’s graph and your explanation of the Roosevelt recession are plausible and likely correlated.
I’m not trying to frustrate you but, I still believe it’s possible that the history of the period is told thru biased eyes. Capitalists have the strong motivation to explain that the War ended the Depression. Progressives, that it was the government intervention.
No matter. You’re links are good. And the question that comes to mind is, that even if WWII ended the Depression (the capitalist view) wasn’t that a big government intervention with massive debt spending?
You’re argument is stronger.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:59 pmralph,
your argument is stronger.
and so is your spelling.
***
go galt backup,
go galt.
*
good luck, my friend.
:|
March 18th, 2009 at 9:06 pmdipshit poorly educated overseas whack off loser…
March 18th, 2009 at 9:14 pmOh yeah, Wasn’t it BUSH that was the HEAD of the GOP??? I mean they always put the preznit as the head of the party, so does he not maintain that position when he leaves office? So, BUSH is RUSH’s boss.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:37 pmjoe. ralph’s arguments are strong, but your function as human spellchecker also adds considerable value. keep up the good work.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:52 pmbackup Says:
joe. ralph’s arguments are strong, but your function as human spellchecker also adds considerable value. keep up the good work.
*
backup i see your point,
would that you gave as much care and
attention to your own writing, eh?
*
keep up the good work.
and btw, don’t forget a little something
we like to call…
THE CHALLENGE:
*
backup,
we were hoping you had taken your cherry picked quotes,
your phony socratic questions and your general silliness
and gone galt on us.
too much to hope for, i guess.
*
if what you have to offer has any value at all you would be missed.
if not no one would notice or care about your absence
and you’d be recognized for what you really are; a dilettante.
(my money is on the latter.)
*
a challenge. do you have the courage to test your
ideas and opinions on the open market place? or would rather keep
foisting them on people willy nilly?
*
good luck, my friend.
:)
*
March 18th, 2009 at 9:59 pmYes, according to the ‘capitalists’, all it took to pull us out of a depression (shown to be easing by 1936, then exacerbated by ‘free market’ forces) was our entry into WW2 (1942). So, in the six years ‘capitalist’ policies cut into the new deal, what happened?
Shouldn’t the ‘free market’ have self-corrected? Nah, all it took was a World War.
I love it that ‘free market’ advocates forget what a corporate nanny state the US actually is.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:46 amBush is such a liar.
Bush secretly only desires Obama to fail.
On balance, George W. Bush hates black people (indicated at http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/12/andrew-yu-jen-wang-responds-to-stokely.html George W. Bush “doesn’t care about black people”).
“George Bush Used Hand Sanitizer Immediately After Shaking Barack Obama’s Hand: Is Bush Germophobic or Racist?” (Posted by Peter Griffin. (2008, November 11). George Bush Used Hand Sanitizer Immediately After Shaking Barack Obama’s Hand: Is Bush Germophobic or Racist? SodaHead. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://www.sodahead.com/question/188322/george-bush-used-hand-sanitizer-immediately-after-shaking-barack-obamas-hand-is-bush-germophobic-or-racist/?link=samf).
George W. Bush is racist.
The raging racist—George W. Bush—must be irate over a black person having become the president of the United States.
Barack Obama wins!
Go Barack Obama!
Barack Obama may defy George W. Bush’s hatred of black people!
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
March 20th, 2009 at 3:03 amB.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
humility…now there’s a quality that this man should have expressed in all his years as “president”. And he smacks down Limpdick in the process. Nice.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:07 pm