-
Pick Obama’s Brain
May 16, 2013 | 61 comments
-
Remembering Herb Romerstein
May 10, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obama’s Planned Parenthood Love Fest
April 29, 2013 | 69 comments
-
Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day
April 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Bill Casey’s Centennial
April 5, 2013 | 69 comments
The Obama Watch
Obama’s Presidential Blame-Game
Happy Presidents’ Day, Presidents Bush, Truman, and Hoover.
Presidents’ Day is today. I teach and write about presidents, and thus Presidents’ Day always prompts me to strange musings concerning our past chief executives. This year is no exception, as I’m thinking about six particular presidents: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, FDR, Herbert Hoover, Bill Clinton, and Harry Truman. How could I possibly connect these six? What might they have in common? Bear with me — I’ll start and end with Obama.
Barack Obama, and particularly his re-election campaign, has achieved something quite dubious of a sitting president, and which his liberal supporters don’t mind at all. Namely, he has done a thoroughly reprehensible job of blaming every woe over the last four years — with more to come — on his predecessor. Never mind that every single economic indicator under Obama is not only worse than under George W. Bush, but far worse. Obama has presided over a steadily worsening economic disaster, one that is stacking up as one of the most dreadful economic records of any president in history. And yet, as he does, he shamelessly passes the buck to his predecessor, blaming George W. Bush.
Not only is this a very low-character thing for an American president to do — unbecoming, un-presidential, and unlike a genuine leader — but it’s precisely what Americans presidents don’t do; they don’t treat each other like this, having much more respect for the job and those who have held it. There is a long-time gentlemen’s understanding, honored by nearly every president, that you don’t blame your predecessor for your problems.
That camaraderie is detailed by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, two Time magazine veterans, in their excellent 2012 book The Presidents Club. As Gibbs and Duffy note, presidents share a patriotic, dutiful attitude of country-first/office-first — the chief, abiding rule of their “club” code. It is the common bond among club members, a code that (they all agree) must transcend party politics. “The club serves to protect the office,” write Gibbs and Duffy. Thus, former presidents should not openly criticize the current occupant, and vice versa — a code that most have followed, with rare exceptions.
One such exception is Barack Obama, whose go-to scapegoat for everything is George W. Bush.
Yet, there was another exception: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR, like Obama, needed to conjure up various demons to advance his “progressive” agenda, with the vile rich atop his enemies list. But FDR also dumped on his Republican predecessor. He blamed everything on Herbert Hoover.
For the record, this really upset Hoover. Hoover was hurt deeply by FDR constantly trashing him, his record, his policies, his character. FDR did not treat Hoover the way we Americans hope and expect our presidents to treat one another. Their relationship became toxic. FDR’s successor, Harry Truman, took notice. “Roosevelt couldn’t stand him,” said Truman of Hoover, “and he [Hoover] hated Roosevelt.”
Even sadder, and quite stunning, is the awful fact that both FDR and Obama got away with this blame-game. FDR was able to successfully blame everything on Hoover in successful re-election upon re-election. Liberal historians have since done likewise, picking up Roosevelt’s torch, exempting the New Dealer from any culpability for the dismal economy he presided over throughout his tenure. Obama is likewise succeeding with his campaign against George W. Bush. A literal majority (60%, according to one exit poll) of those who voted for Obama in 2012 swallowed Obama’s Bush blame-game hook, line, and sinker, and they surely always will.
How do Harry Truman and Bill Clinton relate to this?
Truman and Clinton, like Obama and FDR, were, of course, both Democrats. Truman, however, was willing to put party aside in order to do what was right. He had character by the boatload. He saw how troubled Hoover was by FDR’s mistreatment. Thus, Truman, a good man, did what he could to remedy the situation. He reached out to Hoover after World War II and sought to use the maligned ex-president in several very significant projects, including post-war reconstruction for Europe.
“I knew what I had to do,” said Truman of the huge challenge he faced in Europe, “and I knew just the man I wanted to help me.” And so, Truman employed Hoover’s considerable managerial talents. He enlisted Hoover in an intense effort (pre-Marshall Plan) to feed a Europe threatened by starvation and Soviet communism.
It was a very gracious gesture, and pure Truman. Truman saw a wrong by his fellow Democrat, FDR, and strived to correct it, regardless of his party loyalties.
Bill Clinton, unfortunately, is the anti-Truman. When Clinton, who is very friendly with both George W. Bush and his father, learned of Obama’s campaign to blame Bush for every ill in America, including those that Obama has not merely created but mushroomed to unprecedentedly destructive levels, what did Clinton do? Did he telephone Obama and say, “Hey, back off, that isn’t right and you know it. We presidents don’t treat ex-presidents that way.”
No, that’s what Harry Truman would have done, but Truman had integrity. What did Bill Clinton do? He joined the Obama campaign against Bush. The most notorious display was Clinton’s Democratic National Convention speech, where he turned up the smirk and oily charm and prattled on and on about how not even he — the Great Wizard of Smart — could have turned around the permanently disfigured economy that Barack Obama inherited from the malevolent Bush. No, no way, just impossible. Bush destroyed us, irreparably, intractably. As Clinton kept it up, the Obama faithful soaked it up, leaping up and down and practically chanting in mindless cadence: “It’s Bush’s fault. It’s Bush’s fault. It’s Bush’s fault. It’s Bush’s fault. It’s Bush’s fault.”
Bill Clinton had done what he did best. As fellow Democrat Bob Kerrey once put it, Clinton is an “unusually good liar.” Like the tawdry personal behavior he exhibited throughout his time in the Oval Office, Clinton had again showed himself as the anti-Truman.
About the Author
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Kengor
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/18/obamas-presidential-blame-game
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
spike59| 2.18.13 @ 6:26AM
excellent article; but you left out the #1 'anti-Truman' of all-time; the ever-pompous and self-righteous James Earl Carter, who never forgot a slight (real or imagined) and has never hesitated to publicly and loudly slam his predecessors or his successors
Aristocat| 2.18.13 @ 3:12PM
Truman was a vicious little creep who hated Republicans...He was a product of the Kansas City Prendergast crime family...He got us in the Korean War and then couldn't end it...He stopped MacArthur from defeating the Communists...He left office with the lowest approval rating in history...
CJW| 2.18.13 @ 4:01PM
Truman looks good compared to the rest of the Dems that followed him. Who would not look good compared to Carter, Clinton, and Obama, the Three Stooges?
Truman did serve honorably in WWI, and did drop the bombs on Japan to end WWII.
TLP| 2.18.13 @ 4:21PM
And he was Man Enough to live by the credo: The Buck Stops Here.
So did Reagan.
So did George Herbert Walker Bush.
So did George W. Bush.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 6:56AM
The Bushes were a disaster for the conservative movement and the Republican party. Everytime you see Obama or one of the Clinton's on TV you can blame the Bushes. Lets bury the Bushes and move on. My favorite President of all time is William Henry Harrison. Hoover was a good man, but a rotten President. His best work was trying to prevent us from not going into WW2 with The America First Committee.
Job| 2.18.13 @ 1:52PM
hmm for the hell of it post the presidents from Lincoln to Obama in order from the ones you like most to the ones you dislike. Mebbe we can achieve some parity from which to assess your comments this way.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 2:01PM
Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 2:05PM
The ones I listed are the ones I liked. The worst were Lincoln, Grant, TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, The Bushes, clinton and Obama. The rest were mediocre.
Job| 2.18.13 @ 2:27PM
thanks
Von Mises Jr| 2.18.13 @ 7:44AM
This behavior is not simply unbecoming and un-presidential, it is the reason FDR and Obama resemble Stalin and Hitler more than the other Presidents mentioned. It is about demonization and terror to achieve totalitarianism.
After the fall of the Romanov Czar Nicholas, Bolshevik Lenin and the Trotskyites battled for dictatorship. When Lenin died, Stalin emerged as the winner. He then targeted the Kulaks who were wealthy farmers as well as the Catholics, Jews, Buddhist and some Protestant sects as the religious saw the Czars as rulers under the Divine Right of Kings.
In Germany during the Weimar, there were three socialist groups: Majority and Independent Socialist and Bolshevik inspired Communist. Majority Socialist ruled until revolution, depression and hyperinflation led to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler targeted Jews, Catholics and Poles.
So like FDR that attacked the Constitution and Supreme Court, Obama also targets Catholics, Israel, TEA Party Conservatives and the top 1%.
It is instructive that the top 1% in Germany was the Jewish bankers and business owners who were targeted just as the wealthy Kulaks had been targeted in the Ukraine.
This is why we have this targeting of groups and Breitbart reports that there may be 10,000 drones circling U.S. skies in five years. The new Siberia or Nazi gas chambers could be a Hellfire Missile in your window.
TLP| 2.18.13 @ 8:17AM
Yeah. He's attacking the 1% as we speak, at an Exclusive Yacht/Golf Club in South Florida, surrounded by his Millionaire/Billionaire Friends.
He just gave Facebook a big Corporate Welfare Kiss on the Ass, with the help of a lot of Creative Accounting by his IRS lackeys. Just like he did for Google. Just like he does with his Union Scumbags. Just like he does for that other Scumbag, down in Cornhole State. You know him. He's the Obama Buddy that's making MILLION$, hauling all that Oil from Cananda, down to the Gulf on His Trains, because "The Magic Negro" (Hat Tip - LA Times) keeps refusing to let a Pipeline, and the Thousands of Jobs it will create, be built.
That's why he's President $9 an hour, now.
It's 2013, in Obama's Amerika.
The only jobs left, are Minimum Wage Jobs.
Von Mises Jr| 2.18.13 @ 8:40AM
In Omerica, the $9 per hour jobs will be cleaning the toilets and mowing the lawns of the government fascist and crony capitalist elitist.
If they take our guns combined with the fact that they have fascist control of major corporations such as GE, GM and GS; hold our mortgage through Fannie, Freddie, HUD or GMAC; hold our student loans, and control the energy, food and water, we will be slaves to totalitarians. And yet Perp and DRedge sell their freedom with a smirk.
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 11:30AM
Jr:
Remember, it was the British attempt to confiscate the arms from the MA militia that set in motion the train of events in April of 1775.
chuck| 2.18.13 @ 7:57AM
Truman and W loved this country. Obama hates it. Clinton loves himself and power. Hope that Hillary is dead before 2016.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 8:09AM
Truman was a crook and a liberal. Why the hell do conservatives love him? GW Bush was an incompetent and liar who gave us Obama.
bustunloose| 2.18.13 @ 9:14AM
Truman did not retire a rich man. He never enriched himself. Get the hell out America. You do not belong here.
at least get the hell out of the GOP. Really your a sick diseased animal.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 11:12AM
Truman exempted his memoirs from the punitive income taxes of his day. He explained it away by saying he did the same for General Eisenhowers. He also took 2 million in a bag to recognize Israel and not for one penny less. Even though the State Department and Defense Dept. knew it would be the disaster it turned out to be, and requested he not do it.
markenoff| 2.18.13 @ 4:25PM
Prove it.
spike59| 2.19.13 @ 5:30AM
at least get the hell out of the GOP
----------------------------------------
jackie's just a bitter Rontard
Joellen| 2.18.13 @ 8:24AM
No Jack, we the people voted in Obama.
With the help of a media that is so up his ....;
It's the media that lies Jack.
I didnt agree with President Bush at all on his fiscal policies but I believe Chuck is right - he loves our country.
obama & clinton - not so much, in fact not at all.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 11:17AM
Sorry Joellen: Bush was a liar or idiot perhaps both. How come Pat Buchanan Ron Paul and me knew it was all lies and nonsense and Bush didn't? Generals Brent Skowcroft and Norm Schwartzkoph both spoke out against Iraq. So did Powell. He ignored the truth for some other agenda.
1ConservativeUSA| 2.18.13 @ 12:39PM
Why did Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry take to the floor to say that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was a threat to the USA?
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 1:13PM
I don't defend the Clintons in any way. They all knew it was a pack of lies. Or Kerry either. They are all a bunch of liars. Let's clean out the Bush gang and all their pals. The Democrats are a lost cause.
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 12:44PM
Opposition to the Iraq invasion came from those who oppose any American involvement with the UN. Constant violations the UN no fly zone was the major reason for the final invasion which BTW did end the threat posed by Saddams regime.
I assume the "lie" Bush told was the WMDs in Iraq? If so how do we explain the warehouses of chemical weapon components, the missiles buried in the sand and the weapons currently running around Syria, where the Iraqis shipped them during the invasion?
The mistake my friends was in continuing nation building efforts after the Iraqi military threat was ended. That is not a job for the U S military. Winning the brief war was.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 1:20PM
There was never any threat to the USA from Iraq. The no fly zone was no reason to go to war. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It had been inspected and overflown thousands of times. It was a poor starving country. Every liar who pushed the war knew it. They are all a bunch of warmongering criminals, who sacrificed tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqis to death and misery.
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 1:40PM
North Korea is a poor starving country as well dear Jack. Such governments have no concern for their populations. Still, your ideology gets in the way of rational debate. Tens of thousands of Americans? Millions of Iraqis? Come now. Fewer American deaths than on the beach at Normandy in one day. You are entitled to your opinion, specious as it may be, but not to your own facts.
Drunken Sailor| 2.18.13 @ 1:45PM
Atta boy Al!
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 1:47PM
Thanks D/S, but its a lost cause and waste of time and effort. Hope your young former employee is well.
Drunken Sailor| 2.18.13 @ 4:07PM
As do I.
TLP| 2.18.13 @ 4:28PM
Don't forget the 5 TONS OF YELLOWCAKE URANIUM that was found, and removed from Iraq, by our Troops.
Everybody seems to forget about that one.
Look it up.
Better yet - Ask Joe Wilson, and his Whore.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 2:08PM
We should have been out of Korea decades ago. The South is more then able to defend itself and build nukes if it wants to.
markenoff| 2.18.13 @ 4:28PM
And why are we still in Kosovo? Clinton sent our Soldiers in there with no exit strategy. And you know we still have troops in Virginia. The Confederacy surrendered almost 150 years ago but we still have bases there.
spike59| 2.19.13 @ 5:38AM
facts never got in the way of Jackie spewing her usual Kos-approved talking points
markenoff| 2.18.13 @ 4:30PM
I thought it was Colin Powell who lied. He's the one who gave the brief to the UN Security Council.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/st.....r1=inspect
http://www.accuracy.org/releas.....ed-to-war/
CJW| 2.18.13 @ 6:37PM
It was Susan Rice who lied. Mrs Bubba always lies so it is not news.
Dai Alanye | 2.18.13 @ 8:24PM
The biggest mistake by Dubya was allowing Tony Blair to convince him to delay the Iraq invasion, thereby allowing Saddam time to remove many of his WMDs. As it was we uncovered huge stores of chemical suits and nerve gas antidotes, a fleet of trucks fitted-up to disperse gaseous agents, and hidden bunkers filled with barrels of "insecticide." Hint: Zyklon B, one of the Nazi exterminating agents, was a pesticide.
C'mon Man!| 2.19.13 @ 5:39PM
Agreed, our military should fight, not act like the Red Cross after kicking a$$.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.18.13 @ 8:47AM
Not only did Bush and Truman both love their country (without feeling the need to fundamentally transform it), but they both had positive personal character attributes that the current POTUS lacks.
It is important to note, though, that when Truman left office in 1953, he was far from beloved. Nonetheless, 20-25 years later, Truman’s reputation underwent a renaissance, and he was celebrated in popular culture as a much better leader than he was thought of when he was in office.
It remains to be seen if the future holds such treatment for the reputation of George W Bush (or if Obama will even permit a future).
TLP| 2.18.13 @ 4:30PM
If it is ever written?
It'll be Crossed Out on all of the Obelisks built in Obama's Name.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.18.13 @ 9:52AM
What does it say about the American people that they re-elected Roosevelt and Obama, even though their big-spending policies failed? In Roosevelt's case, the yahoos reelected him three times. The fact is, when it comes to economic policies, the majority of Americans simply cannot put two and two together to make four.
markenoff| 2.18.13 @ 4:31PM
Cash for votes. Duh.
TLP| 2.18.13 @ 4:33PM
That's stupid.
Most Americans can add 2+2.
It just equals: More Free Stuff, instead of 4.
Dai Alanye | 2.18.13 @ 8:27PM
Part of the reason FDR was reelected is the me-too doofuses the GOP put up against him. Sound familiar?
chasrome| 2.18.13 @ 10:23AM
Interesting article. I also appreciated the comment by one respondent that Carter should have been included in this roll call of shame.
I have read Herbert Hoover's "Freedom Betrayed." Turns out that FDR was a Stalin groupie who rebuffed Japanese pleas for peace several times during the late 1930s. Why? Simply to protect Stalin's Vladivostok and other Asian assets. All who died in the Pacific Theater and those who cared about them did so to help FDR’s buddy Stalin. It was FDR who created the cold war. These were the real costs of believing FDR’s demagoguery. I expect the cost of believing Obama’s slanders to be some order of magnitude higher.
On Truman, I’ve always believed he was a good man. My sister and I can still remember our shock at hearing him booed in movie theaters back in the day. However, he was not without his own feet of clay: The dropping of the bomb was a bureaucratic imperative that was not necessary to get the Japanese to surrender. Truman should not have gone along with this. Also, it looks like Truman was late in recognizing the danger of Communism. He may have been complicit in suppressing the facts on Alger Hiss for several years (continuing the policy under FDR, of course). No matter how good a man he was he was chained by his liberal democrat associates/instincts.
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 11:33AM
Freedom Betrayed is a fascinating look and a well documented one, at the workings of the administration during and after WWII. Well worth the read and well recommended by you sir(?).
Who Knows?| 2.18.13 @ 12:13PM
“The dropping of the bomb was a bureaucratic imperative that was not necessary to get the Japanese to surrender.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You are woefully misinformed. Given the fanatical attitude of the Japanese regime, an invasion would have meant millions of casualties, on both sides. The allies had the results from “to the death” resistance by the Japanese on the islands like Iwo Jima. Even the Japanese, NOW, admit dropping the bombs saved lives.
However, I’ve long thought Truman should have dropped them on sparsely populated areas, as mostly a demonstration of what would happen if they didn’t immediately surrender. My guess is he and his advisors figured that since they only had two bombs, and the Nipponese were so fanatical, they would take it as weakness to do so, and thus NOT surrender.
Anyway, as someone recently noted, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now booming cities, while Detroit closely resembles them in 1945.
TLP| 2.18.13 @ 4:34PM
Who knows?
Who Knows, knows.
Well done W.K.
TLP| 2.18.13 @ 4:36PM
Try and imagine how many of us wouldn't be alive today, if our Fathers and Grandfathers had to slog their way through the Japanese Main Island.
It's a big number.
Dai Alanye | 2.18.13 @ 8:30PM
Even after the nuclear bombs were dropped many Japanese leaders wished to continue fighting. Only the unprecedented Imperial address by Hirohito ended resistance.
markenoff| 2.18.13 @ 4:44PM
The fire bombings from B-29 attacks on Japanese cities were much worse than those of the two atom bombs; they killed more people, destroyed more cities and were more ghastly in their manner of killing—by suffocation, by melting, and by simple cremation. But the Emperor gave in only after the second A-bomb was dropped.
Japanese military officers were brutally starving, beating and beheading Allied POWs up to and after Japan surrendered. If the Japanese were so eager to surrender than they should have released these prisoners instead of starving them.
And the dropping of the bombs may not have been necessary to get Japan to surrender. But it was sufficient, saving millions of lives.
Did you know more than 100,000 (some estimates go as high as 300,000) Filipinos were killed by the Japanese in the Battle of Manile, most deliberately?
“According to reliable evidence gathered from prisoners of war, military personnel, Philippine officials and civilians, and Japanese documents, the rape of Manila was not a random act of melee, mayhem and wanton destruction but an act of coldly planned atrocities by the Japanese high command from Tokyo.” Armando Ang in his book "The Brutal Holocaust".
The Japanese sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
J.C.Eaton| 2.18.13 @ 10:55AM
You don't have to care for Jack, or even agree with him with any frequency to know he's got both the Bush's pegged petty well. Each was an inept tool and fool. The old man was the "promise-breaker" that gave us Clinton[a probable rapist for heaven's sake] and in so doing piddled away an 87% approval rating.The son, a decent man who didn't even care enough about his job to defend his own efforts to do it, begat as much as anyone, the setting that permitted the election of the burlesque we suffer today. And no, WE didn't elect him;save for purp and his clones, there isn't an Obama-Biden elector within two miles of this site.
Dai Alanye | 2.18.13 @ 8:32PM
Re Jack: Even a stopped clock, etc.
rjh| 2.18.13 @ 11:05AM
Not to quibble with the article, but a comparison of the Democrat party of Truman's time to the Democrat party of Clinton/obama is apples to oranges.
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 11:37AM
True indeed. The once proud and patriotic Democrat party has become, well, at best the anti-American social welfare party. It sees citizens as members of racial, ethnic or socio-economic groups dependent on government for their subsistence rather than as individuals and free people.
For many years the Dems and their Leftist allies preached that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, but they certainly can't take it when its directed at them.
TLP| 2.18.13 @ 4:38PM
That's because everything the Democrat Cult does, is For Thee. And, not for Me.
markenoff| 2.18.13 @ 4:47PM
Disagree. The wholesale buying of votes by the national Dems and the infiltration of the feeral government by communists started with the New Deal. They bought the 1960 election with help from Mayor Daley and some pliable eastern Texas election officials.
Crassus| 2.18.13 @ 11:10AM
Poor old Dubya. Even when he's out of office he refuses to defend himself or his record. Perhaps he knows deep in his heart how much he screwed the pooch and that's why he's a recluse these days. If I never see his face on television again it will be too soon.
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 11:38AM
Would not any and all of us trade W for the current occupant of the White House?
J.C.Eaton| 2.18.13 @ 12:16PM
Al, grotesquely unfair question. I'd trade the current burlesque for a years' supply of used cigarettes. Besides, Bush had his second chance and he shit the bed with it. Best,
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 12:48PM
Why is it that so many of our own, our political allies, buy into the leftist mantra of "Bush lied, people died"?
rjh| 2.18.13 @ 1:01PM
It's not that "Bush lied, people died". It's about his RINO behavior in office. "Teddy Kennedy's" education bill, Medicare prescription bill, compassionate conservatism, "Islam is the religion of peace", profligate spending, signing unconstitutional bills, etc. Both Bushes severely damaged the Republican party. One gave us Clinton, the other gave us obama.
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 1:45PM
Once you define your terms, I cannot disagree. Nonetheless, my question remains. Expand it to McCain and even Romney, who I loudly opposed you may recall. Would we not prefer either one over this administration?
The damage was done to the Conservative Movement not to the GOP. The two are not synonymous although the opposition is more than happy to treat them as such. Otherwise your litany of errors is accurate. W should have vetoed much of the GOP spending with which he was confronted, but much defense spending was held hostage to pork projects and earmarks. Non-germain riders are the ultimate problem and they must go.
rjh| 2.18.13 @ 2:28PM
I should have included: Yes, I would definitely prefer Bush, if that were the only option. However, the result would be the same...another obama would follow.
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 3:25PM
Yes rjh, and that is the problem facing us with the GOP as opposed to those in the Conservative Movement. Until and unless there is a viable alternative to the GOP, Conservatives must work together Neo, paleo, fiscal social et al to regain preponderance within the GOP.
markenoff| 2.18.13 @ 4:50PM
All government ultimately descends to the level of kleptocracy. Our Founders realized that and try to stem it with our Constitution. But once the Commerce Clause's powers were expanded almost indefinitely under Wickard V Filburn the gates were thrown open.
Aristocat| 2.18.13 @ 3:25PM
Exactly....What we are going thru today is the natural result of Bush's disastrous actions. Amnesty for illegal alienas, destroying the Christians of Iraq, giving Planned Parenthood billions for abortions, calling himself "The Decider". What an idiot ! Obama is just following Bush's policies. He should be thanking Bush for putting him in office.
TLP| 2.18.13 @ 4:41PM
I concur with William Buckley.
"I would rather be ruled by the first 500 names in the Boston Phone Book, than the people we have now." (I'm paraphrasing)
Dai Alanye | 2.18.13 @ 8:37PM
Excessive exaggeration is very little different from lying, and negatively affects credibility. There is no reasonable comparison between Dubya and Obama.
Crassus| 2.18.13 @ 2:59PM
Conservatives need to start admitting to themselves that had their been no Dubya Bush there would be no Obummer. Dubya created the perfect storm for the election of a Marxist thug who intends to destroy the United States as we know it.
TLP| 2.18.13 @ 4:46PM
I disagree.
The last two years of the Bush Administration, where Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were in charge of Both Houses of Congress, and John McCain's COWARDICE, was the Impetus for the Election of The Halfrican.
We were at 4% Unemoloyment, until Reid and Pelosi took over.
markenoff| 2.18.13 @ 4:51PM
Obama/Biden 2016!
Dai Alanye | 2.18.13 @ 8:39PM
Correct! The start of recent economic problems was coincident with the Dem takeover of Congress.
Thomas Paulick| 2.18.13 @ 12:31PM
This is just two cents worth to agree with several other people.
1. chuck and Albert Constantine, Jr. are right about Truman and GWB.
2. Who Knows? is right about the bomb, and actually understates the moral argument; Mr.Who Knows? will be encouraged (and mightily supported) by Richard B. Frank's Downfall.
3. Al Adab is right at least 3 of 4 times. (I haven't read Freedom Betrayed.)
4. Paul Kengor is always worth reading.
Al Adab| 2.18.13 @ 1:48PM
Three out of four? I shall endeavor to improve my batting average. Thanks for the compliment.
1ConservativeUSA| 2.18.13 @ 12:36PM
In order to respect the office of the presidency, one must serve the office of the presidency. Obama will do neither.
Who Knows?| 2.18.13 @ 12:43PM
Excellent article.
I think it just illustrates how little class FDR and Obama had and have.
It shows, in detail, that the Democratic Party is animated by breaking the rules. In fact, I believe its defining value is that there are NO VALUES that can’t be ignored.
In short, anything goes---as long as you can get away with it. That’s their ticket—to power.
Maybe humanity has had too much civilization, for too long, and it’s getting to be about time to get back to a less boring reality. After all, we have the Islamic barbarians waging war throughout all civilizations, and like a spreading cancer, taking control cell by cell.
And, there’s no doubt, in my mind, that western “civilization”, epitomized by Europe and America, are already infiltrated by the “inner barbarians”, such as Obama and the Eurocrats. Fanatics are everywhere!
Probably one of the most salient stories I’ve seen for a long time was that it might be true that it’s an advantage for humans to be savage, and killing others is “good”. Hey---if someone had offed Hitler, maybe millions of people would not have died---been killed.
Then, on Drudge, the headline---humans are devolving in intelligence. Who knew!
Stupid savages are as stupid savages do.
Buy guns---and ammunition!
markenoff| 2.18.13 @ 4:52PM
Have you seen "Idiotocracy"? Looks like the future except the forget the legions of inbred followers of Mo, the pedophile bandit (may he rot in hell).
cicero| 2.18.13 @ 5:16PM
GWB did explain his decision after he left office. He wrote a very readible book on the reasons behind his decisions. You may not agree with them, but he had selfless reasons for all of them. The last chapter deals with his handling of the financial crisis at the end of his tenure. It shows that he was clearly out of his depth, and relied too much on advisors who had serious conflicts.
I have been around and observant of politics long enough to distinguish between the Dem party pre and post 1972. Growing up in the UAW Detroit of the 40s, 50s, and 60s, I also am aware of the love the laboring class had for FDR. The true story of FDR is just now being told. The working class was convinced that he was their savior. When you consider that there were no saftey nets back then, they had a reason for their beliefs.
The big difference was that there was a work requirement for benefits in the 30s. You had to show up and work all day to get your check from the WPA and the CCC. The system today does not rescue the poor, it enslaves them. Obama is no FDR. Bush was no Hoover. We are in defferent times, and they are much more dangerous to the fabric of this culture.
ejp| 2.18.13 @ 5:42PM
Let's not overrate Truman's supposed graciousness. Yes, he was nice to Hoover. But he also was a demagogue of the first order who in 1948 got away with the SAME stunt that Obama pulled by blaming the Republican Congress for everything and rerunning the FDR mantra one last time, topped off by the despicable assertion that the GOP Congress was part of the same "clique" that gave us Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. Yet the same scholars who have written endless diatribes on how "mean" and "nasty" Richard Nixon was in his Congressional and Senate campaigns, give this behavior an eternal free pass. Then, let's not forget how Truman, in his creeping senility was responsible for spreading a maliciously false rumor about Eisenhower that he had wanted to divorce his wife and marry Kay Summersby, when there is zero evidence that any affair ever happened.
Butch| 2.18.13 @ 8:06PM
Interesting article. I'll accept the judgement of
Truman's contemporaries about him; he left office with the lowest rating until Bush. Yeah, he nuked the Japs, but anybody would have done that at that time. Former Presidents always kept the rule of not criticizing the current office holder until Carter, then Clinton did it too. Now Obama. It's simply dems vs. repubs, plain and simple. Dubya inherited from his daddy the rule that Presidents don't "defend themselves," because it's not presidential. Turned out to be catastrophic, leading to Obama. Now all the old rules are gone, except for the damn fools who continue to try to apply them, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, like McCain and his butt boy Graham. Too bad.