Saturday, March 14, 2009
Is it really so smart to blame Bush?
This morning's Washington Post, which I purchased in dead-tree at the Kiosk on Palmer Square this morning, has a surprising front-page story with an absolutely ludicrous headline: "Obama's New Tack: Blaming Bush." New tack? Was that not the unrelenting theme during the endless campaign? Still, it is interesting that the WaPo is calling out the president on his backtracking from the soaring words of his inaugural address:
In his inaugural address, President Obama proclaimed "an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."
It hasn't taken long for the recriminations to return -- or for the Obama administration to begin talking about the unwelcome "inheritance" of its predecessor.
Over the past month, Obama has reminded the public at every turn that he is facing problems "inherited" from the Bush administration, using increasingly bracing language to describe the challenges his administration is up against. The "deepening economic crisis" that the president described six days after taking office became "a big mess" in remarks this month to graduating police cadets in Columbus, Ohio.
"By any measure," he said during a March 4 event calling for government-contracting reform, "my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster."
Now, I happen to think the bolded statement is true -- the Bush administration did bequeath a "fiscal disaster." That invites the question, though, whether the Obama-Pelosi-Reid axis has, with its endless pork that at least seems to do little more than line the pockets of favored constituents, mitigated that disaster or exacerbated it. After all, even disasters come in degrees. So I wonder whether it is smart for President Obama to open this subject, which makes a mockery of his post-partisan message. Finally, the president weakens himself by overtly citing on the world's easiest and most hackneyed excuse, blaming George W. Bush.
18 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Mar 14, 09:27:00 AM:
Just words. Just Speeches. Just Lies. Just juvenile, self-serving buck-shifting.
This president and his minions are adolescents, posing as our ruling elite.
They Won. We Lost.
May God save what's left of this nation from their stupendous egos.
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 11:22:00 AM:
Obama HAS to continue to blame Bush so no one forgets the fact that is Bush's fault when the next attack comes.
Obama and his chorus will blame Bush's Gitmo, troops in Iraq, etc. for the attack and to justify why they now will surrender to/negotiate with the 2009 attacker. BTW, Obama is now negotiating the location of the attack. First and most dramatic choice is, of course, SFO but the cost of that attack to Obama supporters is simply too high.
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 11:46:00 AM:
The economic meltdown did not happen on Jan. 20. It was ongoing in 2008 and everyone could see that.
So fine, criticize the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress for their role in it.
Obama was elected to fix the problem and there were and are many policy options for that. Now, is he making the right moves, making the right policy choices or the wrong one?
He will be remembered as the one that made the right or wrong response to the crisis.
He is so exposed right now. He needs cover. Like a scapegoat (Bush), a witch trial, or a court nominee fight to distract the public.
Even my Democratic friends are having doubts.
M.E.
25 dvd's for a blind man. Jeeeesh....
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Sat Mar 14, 12:32:00 PM:
Obama must be a lousy historian. Its widely accepted by many economists these days that FDR era prescriptions were responsible for turning a nasty recession into a depression.
The Obama "plan" is in large part FDR's plan with an updated time/date stamp.
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 12:49:00 PM:
It seems Obama has avery short memory. If I remember correctly he was a US Senator before he was elected president. It is not like he came from under a rock with blinders over his eyes. It is pretty pathetic to blame others when you were part of the problem. By the way, did Bush ever blame anyone at any time in his administration for all the problems he had to face? I cannot recall any.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Mar 14, 01:17:00 PM:
Bush didn't blame Clinton for the DotCom bust recession that he inherited. He was kinda classy that way.
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 01:37:00 PM:
The best way to avoid this type of problem: pay attention when people start calling you out for being fiscal hypocrites, be honest about the expected duration and cost of your wars, and use the mantle of power to address crises before they blow up (CDS and MBS). Exactly whose watch did most of the bad things we discuss start on?
By TOF, at
Sat Mar 14, 01:51:00 PM:
Obama and the Dems will be running against W in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.
By MainStreet, at
Sat Mar 14, 02:20:00 PM:
Everyone knows Pres. Bush could have done a better job with the economy, but putting the entire blame on him for the mortgage/bank meltdown is hypocritical. Clinton started it and the Democrat congress led by Dodd and Franks perpetuated it when Bush called for regulation.
We can only hope that moderate Democrats wise up before This great country is spent into oblivion.
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 02:37:00 PM:
" We can only hope that moderate Democrats wise up before This great country is spent into oblivion. "......What is it you're drinking,exactly ? How large of a container did you purchase ? How much is left in the container ? Finally, are you suggesting that the democrats have any common sense or sence of decency ? I think you've had too much hopey-changy. /sarcasm off/
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 02:45:00 PM:
Don't look now, Emperor O'Bumble, but every former, current and future U. S. enemy already knows what a weak jerkass leader you are, and can't wait to take advantage.....Oh wait, O'Biden already warned us about this, that it might look as if, during some crisis, that "WE DON"T KNOW WHAT WE"RE DOING........."
For once he's right.
By Escort81, at
Sat Mar 14, 05:34:00 PM:
I think TOF has it nailed -- we are seeing the early part of the playbook for 2010 and 2012 (or, for that matter, the NJ 2009 gubernatorial election, or the 2014 midterms; anything between now and 2020). W will be a pinata for a long time to come. If you have a play in your playbook that works, you're going to keep running that play until the other side can demonstrate that it can stop you. Sadly, one scenario that stops it might be the passing of W's father or mother in the run up before an election. While hard left types might dance in the streets at his sadness, moderates would call a time out on Bush bashing.
It is also clear that TH is correct -- President Obama's post-partisan message is simply part of his soaring rhetoric, while the day-to-day operation of the White House is as Rovian as can be. Unfortunately, that is the nature of politics and its inherent hypocrisy today. It is a reflection of human shortsightedness -- both sides use it because it works in the short run. Over the long run, it makes it difficult to build any sort of meaningful and lasting consensus, and we are left with a pendulum swinging back and forth across a narrow band of a few million swing voters, as far as the eye can see.
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 08:03:00 PM:
Obama blaming Bush is nothing new. Obama was running for two years on the slogan that Bush is bad and the US needs Change, McCain is continuation of Bush but he, Obama, is the One who will bring Change.
So the proper question to Obama is, what exactly are you doing to change things and how do you think it is working so far?
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 08:18:00 PM:
I really don't think even Obama's core supporters are buying the Bush line anymore, but whether they are or aren't isn't important. The independent vote makes the decisions in our elections and the Rasmussen polling seems to say they are losing hope in all the change.
By JPMcT, at
Sat Mar 14, 08:58:00 PM:
Ronald Reagan inherited the collosal mess left by Jimmy Carter. The Prime Rate was in the stratosphere, the evening news calculated the daily "misery index", Islamic Fundamentalists were handed Iran on a platter and then proceeded to deeply scar and embarass the country....ALL THIS AND MORE...and Carter was not "blamed"...Reagan just assumed control and fixed the problems.
George W. Bush's comment on the pecadillos of Bill Clinton..."Let's just move on..."
I suppose that's the difference between followers and leaders.
I'm done waiting for Obama to surprise me and do a competent job. His intent and his character are clear to me and are becoming clear, bit by bit, to his analytical supporters, world leaders and non-cultist media. I can only hope that we make it thru the next four years. We have a teenager at the wheel and the road is very dangerous.
By , at
Sat Mar 14, 09:27:00 PM:
Sooner or later this recession will end and Obama will claim credit. Once he has done that he cannot blame Bush anymore. If growth is sluggish or unemployment remains high or we dip back into recession, he owns it. And if this recession doesn´t end, he will eventually own it, too. A year from now whining about Bush will be getting old. Two years from now it will be ridiculous.
By MathMom, at
Sun Mar 15, 12:20:00 PM:
O'Bambi ain't never run nuthin' but his mouth. It is starting to show in a big way. He doesn't know how to run a business, doesn't understand economics, thinks printing presses are where money comes from. If he'd crack an Econ 101 book on Wednesday nights instead of hosting cocktail parties, he'd do the country a great service.
Until then, it's All George's Fault.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Mar 15, 09:48:00 PM:
