Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Blaming Bush -- and its limits



How much do voters still blame George W. Bush for the current state of the country? Getty Images

In his Oval Office address Tuesday night, President Barack Obama made very clear where he thought much of the blame for lax regulations of offshore drilling lay: George W. Bush.

Obama described the difficulties at the Minerals Management Service -- the federal agency charged with oversight of drilling -- as "emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility -- a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves."

Blaming Bush -- at least in part -- for the government failures made plain by the oil spill is simply the latest example of the president and his senior aides making the case to the American public that their actions in office are largely in reaction to the problems the last president created.

(Worth noting: All presidents -- particularly when they hail from a different party than their predecessor -- tend to blame some of the problems the country faces on the last guy. It's like moving into a new house and not liking the colors the previous owner painted the walls. But, Obama has laid more at Bush's feet than most.)

Democratic political operatives make clear that the "blame Bush" strategy will also be at the center of their messaging heading into the 2010 midterms.

Will it work?

Two new national polls provide mixed messages on that question although what is not up for debate is that people still see Bush at the root of the current economic problems.

In an Associated Press/GfK national survey released this morning, 54 percent said Bush deserves either "a lot" (38 percent) or "quite a bit" (16 percent) of blame for the recession. By contrast just 23 percent said Obama was in line for either "a lot" (17 percent) or "quite a bit" (six percent) of blame for the economic woes.

Those numbers are consistent with data from a National Public Radio poll released yesterday that tested voters in 70 swing districts across the country. Forty nine percent said the President Bush was "more responsible for the problems with the economy" while 36 percent said the same of President Obama.

And yet, there is evidence in both polls that suggests that solely blaming Bush has its limitations electorally.

Asked whether how they viewed President Obama's handling of the economy, 45 percent of those tested in the AP/GfK survey said they had a favorable view while 50 percent were unfavorable. More than nine in ten said the economy was a matter of significant interest to them.

If history is any guide, voters tend to give a president between six months and a year of a political honeymoon -- in which the chief executive is not held responsible for what has come before. But, inevitably, voters begin to change their thinking at some point as expectations rise for the current president to show results -- the "we elected you to solve these problems" mentality.

Obama hasn't passed that moment just yet but it is almost certainly coming.

The other complicating factor in the "blame Bush approach is made evident in the NPR poll when people were read two different statements about the economy.

The Democratic message including lines like "They left America with rising bailouts, deficits and unemployment" and "We can't go back to policies that hurt the middle class" while the GOP statements had phrases like "the bailouts failed...the stimulus failed...and the health care bill will cost too much money."

Forty one percent of those tested preferred the Democratic statement while 53 percent preferred the GOP message.

While something of an imperfect measure -- it's not yet clear that Democrats (or Republicans) will use this messaging on the campaign trail -- the question does reveal a fundamental fact about elections: they are -- almost always -- about the future.

The frame of the 2008 election was clearly the Bush presidency but Obama, smartly, focused heavily on his vision of where the country should and could go rather than where it was or had been. He successfully cast Sen. John McCain as a creature of a failed past while painting himself as a herald of a better future.

Other successful candidates in this election -- Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania being perhaps the clearest example -- have won races by drawing that same sort of "past versus future" contrast.

It's a certainty that Democratic candidates -- particularly Senate candidates running against the likes of Rob Portman in Ohio and Roy Blunt in Missouri -- will seek to put the Bush years at the center of their campaigns.

And, the data suggests there is some room to run there. But, voters have a strong bias to hearing what you plan to do for them not what your opponent has (or hasn't) done for them.

Given that, while linking Republicans to Bush in certain races may amount to a silver bullet, those contests seem more likely to be the exception rather than the rule come November.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 16, 2010; 1:34 PM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: "Worst Week in Washington": The Nominees
Next: Thune: Obama's oil spill address "should have happened a lot earlier"

Comments

http://www.infowars.com/def-sec-gates-exaggerates-iranian-missile-capacity-as-attack-looms/

Exaggerated Iranian Missle Capacity to manipulate war!

Just as Bilderberg, Obama want it!

Posted by: PaulRevere4 | June 20, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

He was no leader in the campaign. He's no leader when unscripted troubles pop up and leave no opportunity to rehearse and strategize. He only sounds like a leader when he's on his own teleprompter giving one of his demonized whatever or whoever "I am uniquely qualified to handle this" speeches.

Faced with challenges he goes someplace quiet. 150 days to meet his CENTCOM commander? 58 days before speaking to the BP chief?

Folks, this man cannot make an open field decision on the facts. He can only go ruminate with his cronies. His ad hoc conversational abilities are scary bad; that repetitious glancing to the lower right when pushed for an answer to uncomfortable questions is clinical in its consistency and usefulness as his poker"tell".

We're stuck with this untested, unqualified, non-leader. The military exposed me to leaders at many level and capabilities: those who were at their maximum ability or inept in their role and those who demonstrated a clear ease with the responsibilities and challenges of their roles, destined to accept and excel in subsequent higher level roles.

Thanks to that experience I feel like my spotting skills for traits of leaders is refined beyond average. I can spot the one who will get me killed as I can tell the one who is really losing sleep over the welfare of subordinates.

I have real worries for the next two years.

Posted by: ascpgh1 | June 16, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

He was no leader in the campaign. He's no leader when unscripted troubles pop up and leave no opportunity to rehearse and strategize. He only sounds like a leader when he's on his own teleprompter giving one of his demonized whatever or whoever "I am uniquely qualified to handle this" speeches.

Faced with challenges he goes someplace quiet. 150 days to meet his CENTCOM commander? 58 days before speaking to the BP chief?

Folks, this man cannot make an open field decision on the facts. He can only go ruminate with his cronies. His ad hoc conversational abilities are scary bad; that repetitious glancing to the lower right when pushed for an answer to uncomfortable questions is clinical in its consistency and usefulness as his poker"tell".

We're stuck with this untested, unqualified, non-leader. The military exposed me to leaders at many level and capabilities: those who were at their maximum ability or inept in their role and those who demonstrated a clear ease with the responsibilities and challenges of their roles, destined to accept and excel in subsequent higher level roles.

Thanks to that experience I feel like my spotting skills for traits of leaders is refined beyond average. I can spot the one who will get me killed as I can tell the one who is really losing sleep over the welfare of subordinates.

I have real worries for the next two years.

Posted by: ascpgh1 | June 16, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Irony moment of the day: This bad economy is ALL Obama's doing.

Yeah. Things were soooooooooooooooooooo good in December 2008.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 16, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

I remember Republicans blaming Clinton for all the disasters in GW Bush's first term, most prominently 9/11.

So why can't Obama blame Bush, especially since some of the worst disasters (Iraq, the Great Recession) clearly started under Bush?

Posted by: maggots | June 16, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

This bad economy is ALL Obama's doing. Obama came into office after promising to change our government completely, which is exactly what he did. He changed it from a capitalist Representative Republic, to a Socialist/Communist government--uber-alles one, by following Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals". This included re-distributing all wealth, nationalizing private companies, and giving ever more power to the workers unions. What followed isn't Rocket Science. When you change the system to a Socialist/Communist one, the result is that you'll get what all Communist countries get, a bad economy. It's funny that the Communist Chinese are slowly but surely throwing off the shackles of Communism, and their country is booming, while we are becomming more and more Socialist/Communist (with Obama's leadership), and our country is starting to get a economy like North Korea, Cuba, and what the former USSR's was.

Posted by: armpeg | June 16, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Apparently one can blame Bush without even saying his name. Interesting.

And even if someone does blame Bush: guess what? This crap was largely his fault. If your dog keeps digging up my flowers, I'm not going to start blaming my neighbor's goldfish just to make you feel better.

Posted by: dkp01 | June 16, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

G.W.Bush was a great president when you compare him to Barack Obama, who has proven himself to be the most incompetent, stupidest president that this country has ever had. What this country needs in order to get the economy and jobs back on track, is to impeach this Keystone Kop--fool and bring back G.W. Bush, or someone like him who knows what he's doing.

Posted by: armpeg | June 16, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse


"Because white men really look nothing like monkeys, calling a white man a monkey is fair game."
- Democrat Miss Manners

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 16, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Blaming Bush? Hell,how about blaming Jimmy Carter, this is what GOP has been doing for YEARS. How long ago has he been president? Remember Reagan, Bush I, everytime something went wrong they said it was all because of Carter....nobody defended Carter.
Here is an example, you buy a house from owner who lived there for eight years. After living there for awhile you notice old stains around floorboard; you notice a/c has not been serviced with rust on coils and hot water tank is leaking with old stains around its base.
Now who do you blame...Do you say it just happened, or do try to get compensation for those items....
Well, folks, President Obama came into office with a government already set-up which he cannot correct parts of it until the "stains" spew the water.

Get my point Geniuses?

Posted by: october30 | June 16, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Blaming Bush? Hell, about blaming Jimmy Carter, this is what GOP has been doing for YEARS. How long ago has he been president? Remember Reagan, Bush I, everytime something went wrong they said it was all because of Carter....nobody defended Carter.
Here is an example, you buy a house from owner who lived there for eight years. After living there for awhile you notice old stains around floorboard; you notice a/c has not been serviced with rust on coils and hot water tank is leaking with old stains around its base.
Now who do you blame...Do you say it just happened, or do try to get compensation for those items....
Well, folks, President Obama came into office with a government already set-up which he cannot correct parts of it until the "stains" spew the water.

Get my point Geniuses?

Posted by: october30 | June 16, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

So Obama's supposed to undo the damage of 8 years of the Bush frat party and not mention who ruined the carpet or burnt cigarette holes in the couch. I do wish he would take the tack--yeah those guys did that way and look what happened. THIS is what we're going to do now. And use it as an opportunity to destroy the disastrous policies of the past. He needs a really good PR flack because Obama is a lot more effective than the MSM wants to give him credit for.

The Senate needs to get some starch and make the party of no actually filibuster rather than just threatening to. Call the Republicans out on the "secret" holds and other kinds of obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Where is the Tea Party anger over the secretive dysfunction of the Senate? Somehow they only want to blame the Democrats and the MSM has got a narrative of Obama's ineffectiveness-- which gets blown away by the truth. Just keep underestimating him, and Obama will keep accomplishing without the talking heads noticing.

Posted by: wd1214 | June 16, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

So Obama's supposed to undo the damage of 8 years of the Bush frat party and not mention who ruined the carpet or burnt cigarette holes in the couch. I do wish he would take the tack--yeah those guys did that way and look what happened. THIS is what we're going to do now. And use it as an opportunity to destroy the disastrous policies of the past. He needs a really good PR flack because Obama is a lot more effective than the MSM wants to give him credit for.

The Senate needs to get some starch and make the party of no actually filibuster rather than just threatening to. Call the Republicans out on the "secret" holds and other kinds of obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Where is the Tea Party anger over the secretive dysfunction of the Senate? Somehow they only want to blame the Democrats and the MSM has got a narrative of Obama's ineffectiveness-- which gets blown away by the truth. Just keep underestimating him, and Obama will keep accomplishing without the talking heads noticing.

Posted by: wd1214 | June 16, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse


"Besides, Barry looks a lot more like a gibbon than a monkey."
- Dazed Confused Democrat


Posted by: screwjob16 | June 16, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

"So what if some people think BHO looks like an ape?"

You're entitled to your ignorant, white trash, lowbrow, backwoods, toothless, racist jerk opinion, of course. This is America.

Posted by: info53 | June 16, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse


"As a Dim I think blacks look a lot like monkeys, so calling Barry a monkey is off limits".
- Your Typical Dim

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 16, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Info53 wrote,
"George W. Bush looks like an ape. I'm white, he's white, but he just happens to look like an ape. It's not my fault, it's Barbara's."

----

So what if some people think BHO looks like an ape?

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least screwjob admits he's a klansman. The others don't have the balls, they just want to play silly games.

Posted by: info53 | June 16, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Somewhere you changed the venue from enabling the defense of people whose land is being stolen to enabling indiscriminate acts if terror. I'm nit accustomed to that sort of misrepresentation from you, that's more like brigade.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 9:34 PM
-------

It's lost on Noacoler that Israel's survival is at stake. But there are many holes in Noacoler's knowledge of the world. The ruling party in Palestine, like the madmen in Iran, are committed to wiping Israel from the face of the earth. But no problem if Iran has nuclear weapons? No problem if Syria and Iran sneak weapons into Palestine?

Sometimes you have to take sides. I'll always side with a friend over an enemy. Last I knew, Jews were not committed to killing infidels. Bone up on your facts.

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse


"Black people resemble monkeys so you better not call Obama a monkey."

Typical Dim Chowderhead

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 16, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

I am a strong supporter of the change that President Obama promised and, to some extent, has delivered. However, I am quite tired of the blame Bush strategy. The reason I voted for Obama was that he said he could do better. So do better and stop pointing the finger at Bush. If Obama didn't think he could change what Bush did, then he shouldn't have run for President. He asked for the job. He got it. Move on.

Posted by: logan303 | June 16, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

"So its OK to call Bush a monkey"

37, are you slow?

George W. Bush looks like an ape. I'm white, he's white, but he just happens to look like an ape. It's not my fault, it's Barbara's.

Comparing black people to monkeys is racism of the worst kind.

There's no comparison here, except perhaps, to you.

You following yet, or should I go over it again?

Posted by: info53 | June 16, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

'

FACE IT DEMOCrats, YOUR BELOVED LEADER IS A F***ING IDIOT.

'

Posted by: ahartnack | June 16, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

'

FACE IT DEMOCrats, YOUR BELOVED LEADER IS A F***ING IDIOT.

'

Posted by: ahartnack | June 16, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

'

FACE IT DEMOCrats, YOUR BELOVED LEADER IS A F***ING IDIOT.

'

Posted by: ahartnack | June 16, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

'

FACE IT DEMOCrats, YOUR BELOVED LEADER IS A F***ING IDIOT.

'

Posted by: ahartnack | June 16, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

'

FACE IT DEMOCrats, YOUR BELOVED LEADER IS A F***ING IDIOT.

'

Posted by: ahartnack | June 16, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Spare me the antisemitic dodge, leave that for the zouk monikers. FYI, the Palestinians are as Semitic as the Sephardic Jews, and I didn't say anything about religion or race. Not an omission, because that's a tangent.

Yeah Israel is more than the settlers and I stated that at the outset. But the settlers make up the defense and policy establishments; Avigdor Lieberman is a settler for chrissake.

And I'm not talking about Israel's history, but its present.

Somewhere you changed the venue from enabling the defense of people whose land is being stolen to enabling indiscriminate acts if terror. I'm nit accustomed to that sort of misrepresentation from you, that's more like brigade.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1


Who in Israel do you agree with?

Which peace plan do you agree with ?

Do you advocate giving the Palestinians land back - how much and which land ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Believe me noacolor I know far more about the history of Israel then you will ever know. To suggest that Israel is represented by the radical settlors is precisely like saying America is reflective of Michelle Bachman. What was most disturbing about your post was your comment that the US needs to arm it's enemies. That is disgusting and anti semetic suggesting let's see how many Jews we can kill with scud missiles. This is where I draw the line with the most left wing part of the D party who 's ideology is not far removed from the far right that you attack. Anyone who advocates for arming Israel' enemies is insane. Israel is far more than it's settlors or Netanyahu who I vehemently disagree with.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 16, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

So its OK to call Bush a monkey


But if someone calls Obama a monkey, that is racist ???

When will the democrats learn???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

So its OK to call Bush a monkey


But if someone calls Obama a monkey, that is racist ???

When will the democrats learn???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

So its OK to call Bush a monkey


But if someone calls Obama a monkey, that is racist ???

When will the democrats learn???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Until the problems created by Bush's policies are gone, he gets most of the blame. That would include the economy, Wall Street bailout, MMS(the oil spill), environmental problems, hollowing out the government's capacity to perform, Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terrorism and more. The GOP members in congress get blame for refusing to support policies that would fix the mess that Bush created.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | June 16, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

I blame Bush completely, 100% and will continue to do so until he's no longer to blame.

Posted by: ejs2 | June 16, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

No, leichtman1, sane and sober here.  I don’t think Israel deserves our support, and I think that support stopped being in our interest long ago.  I believe we keep it up because the Israel lobby is so strong in our politics, just as the NRA gets so many concessions, that too being against our interests.
 
I believe a stable Middle East is a lot more vital to American interests than supporting Israel’s religious imperatives and ongoing planting of settlements in obstruction of American proposals for peace in the region.  It’d one thing to stand by a good ally, but Israel is not that, Israel is more like the juvenile delinquent we’ve bailed out of juvenile hall for M80s in mailboxes and who’s now into felonious assault and gangs.  Time for some tough love.
 
Most Israelis are decent people and support rapprochement with the Palestinians, but the decent people don’t run the Israeli government; that falls to the settler movement, a violent and psychotic community with no interest in peace and whose declared intention is the occupation of land far outside Israel’s borders.  Even the Likkud Party, as mainstream as can be, considers Syria and much of Lebanon rightfully theirs.  I say it’s gone on long enough, and we have put the interests of a badly behaving and unconscionably provocative country in front of the entire Muslim world, and I say cut them loose.  Give them six months to close the settlements, come up with and convincingly act upon an actual end to the occupation, or withdraw ambassadors and start acting in our own interests.
 
As for your outrage, my guess is you’ve never heard much from the settler movement.  You might patch that particular hole in your experience.  The settlers are very calm and forthright about violating even Israeli law, knowing full well that the settlements they plant are illegal, and explaining with discursive calm that Israel is neither able nor interested in enforcing the law, and declaring their intention to go on taking, go on pushing, go on expanding, one piece at a time.
 
The settlers are savages.  They bludgeon old women, they murder helpless people in cold blood, and they are the most *casually* bigoted people you will ever run across in your life, nonchalant in their bigotry where American racists are defiant.  Israel’s support for these psychotic thugs is a big fat burden for the USA, and Israel is nowhere near doing anything about them, on the contrary, the settlers call the shots.  I say give them an ultimatum to rein in the settlers, jailing them if necessary, putting down their resistance with force of arms if necessary, when necessary, and call their bluff when they stall, and arm the people whose land they steal when they keep bluffing.  America first.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

BOOT $50

Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL 2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,c oach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

FREE sHIPPING
w w w.n e t e t r a d e r.c o m
...... , . - . - , _ , .........
......... ) ` - . .> ' `( .......
........ / . . . .`\ . . \ ........
........ |. . . . . |. . .| ........
......... \ . . . ./ . ./ ..........
........... `=)\ /.=` ..........
............. `-;`.-' .............
............... `)| ... , .........
................ || _.-'| .........
............. ,_|| \_,/ ..........
....... , ..... \|| .' .............
....... |\ |\ ,. ||/ ..............
.... ,..\` | /|.,|Y\, ............
..... '-...'-._..\||/ .............
......... >_.-`Y| ...............

Posted by: fdsauyf8a9n | June 16, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

You've got to be a MAJOR racist to even think of the word "racist" when someone mentions the word "monkey".

Shame, shame.

Posted by: info53 | June 16, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Former President GW Bush deserves to be left alone as soon as he is laid to rest. Although none of us will be around, I don't believe history will be kind to him. Whether he was an 'evil doer' or just a 'bumbling nincompoop' is hard to say. However, when you express violence against someone you disagree with, it says more about you than them. The American people need to stop shelling out so much hatred at their leaders and criticize the people who elected them. People who believe that what politicians say is exactly what they will do when elected. People who vote based on one issue such as gun ownership. And people who are so polarized that they vote for someone incompetent (the Palin Syndrome).

But as long as a majority of American voters prefer a glamorous candidate over a substantive one the problem will continue.

Posted by: RichardinPasadena | June 16, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

don't want to smash his face, I want him turned over to the surviving family members of people who died in Iraq to salve the insecurity of a short son of a tall father.

Let them shorten him further, their way.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 7:58 PM

-------

What about the people dying in Afghanistan? If you could turn both Bush and Obama loose in a roomful of troops with the lights out, I like Bush's chances a lot better than Obama's. Most soldiers don't like that "chickens coming home to roost" B.S. from someone who's never done more for his country than bow to foreign leaders. That's why there's a concerted effort by Dems in every presidential election to disqualify overseas military ballots on one or another technicality.
You probably feel much more comfortable among the natives of Vietnam than you do among your own countrymen. The same could probably be said of Obama.

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

"Pull the plug ; good riddance Israel; arm it's enemies"

are you insane?

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 16, 2010 8:00 PM
------

That's Noacoler for you. See the kind of anti-Semitic nonsense you get when you associate with these pinko nutbags?

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, you're a nincompoop. info53 was referring to the photo of Bush that accompanies this article. THAT'S the "smirky little monkey face" he wants to punch. Bush was famous for his smirk.

Posted by: haveaheart | June 16, 2010 7:25 PM
-----

There's a long history of racism. We know what you mean when you talk about a "monkey face." Bigot! Klansman! Noacoler!

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

"Pull the plug ; good riddance Israel; arm it's enemies"

are you insane?

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 16, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Well, one thing's for sure...at the rate he's going...we won't have to listen to the Obamanation blame everything on Bush after January 2013. The Obamanation will be long gone then...and it'll be good riddance to socialist rubbish.

Don't look now Obamanation but your honeymoon is over.

Posted by: joelinpdx | June 16, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I don't want to smash his face, I want him turned over to the surviving family members of people who died in Iraq to salve the insecurity of a short son of a tall father.

Let them shorten him further, their way.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

when the dems retook congress, the crisis was created to get the Republicans out of office...
but they took it too far and did more hatm than they intended to do...
and now er may not make it because regardless if you want it or not...
they are shoving their agenda on us before power changes hands again...

Posted by: DwightCollins | June 16, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

And there we have it, the same sordid middle-school junk we get no matter what moniker you're using. Go eat what a dog leaves in the grass, zouk.

Gửi từ iPad của tôi

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 7:08 PM
-------

More body snatchers nonsense from someone who reads too much sci-fi. Are you leichtman1 or drindl or DDAWD? Who are you today, bozo?

Unlawful settlements? LOL. According to who?

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"AFter all these years, I still want to smash that smirking, stupid, drunken face. I try to be a kind person -- I think that Albert Speer and Rudolf Hess got bum raps -- but there is no forgiveness in my heart for the Drunken Chimp.
Posted by: mitt1968 | June 16, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse"

if you wonder why you are in hell...
this is why...
if you wonder why 50% of America hates you for the monster you support...
now you know...
and from all of us, we hope you get to suffer more than us...

Posted by: DwightCollins | June 16, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

AFter all these years, I still want to smash that smirking, stupid, drunken face. I try to be a kind person -- I think that Albert Speer and Rudolf Hess got bum raps -- but there is no forgiveness in my heart for the Drunken Chimp.

Posted by: mitt1968 | June 16, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

i knew you repugs would suffer from temporary memory loss once the cheer leading buffoon was gone.
although the president should have known what he was inheriting,it is no excuse to forget that this country was devastated by the thrashing of the constitution and the economy by flight suit boy and sharp shooter cheney.

Posted by: ninnafaye | June 16, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

"Don't you just want to punch him in his smirky little monkey face?
Posted by: info53 | June 16, 2010 5:33 PM |

More racist talk about your president? Shame on you. Next you'll be making fun of Michelle.
Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 6:12 PM"

Brigade, you're a nincompoop. info53 was referring to the photo of Bush that accompanies this article. THAT'S the "smirky little monkey face" he wants to punch. Bush was famous for his smirk.

Posted by: haveaheart | June 16, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I THINK IT WAS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON AS PRESIDENT WHEN THE C.I.A. ASKED PERMISSION TO KILL OSAMA BIN LADIN,BUT SLICK WILLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO PLAY DOCTOR WITH MONICA LEWINSKY,OF ALL PLACES IN THE WHITEHOUSE.JUST THINK IF SLICK WILLY GAVE PERMISSION TO TAKE OBAMA OUT OF THE PICTURE,NO 9/11 NO WAR IN IRAQ AND NO WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.ASK MR.CLINTON HOW MUCH MONEY HE HAS TAKEN FROM THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

Posted by: SISSD1 | June 16, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

The man is a war criminal. We are still blaming Hitler after 65 years. We have a number of years to go before cessation of Bush hatred.

He has certainly done his best to ruin our country. Perhaps he has indeed destroyed the world. The thought that he will die in bed is astonishing. Certainly Goebbels and Goering had no such opportunity.

Posted by: mitt1968 | June 16, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Yes, all the Muslim countries will love us if we just blow off Israel. Don't be too surprised to see the entire Middle East go up in smoke if Obama keeps bumbling.

==

Hmm, Bush's converting a well-contained dictatorship into a terrorist recruitment center didn't exactly contribute to stabiliy in the middle eas, now did it?  And how about dropping the ball on Afghanistan to do that toppling, just so he could wear his flightsuit and swagger about bein' a war president?  Did that help?

And how does our unconditional support for Israel help anyone, while Israel supports a settler movement that violates every standard of international conduct since the Crusades?  And tell me, zouk, what exactly is the USA getting out of this alleged ally?  I say cut them loose and arm their enemies.  Stability in the middle east is very much in American interests and siding with the most vicious provocateur in the region is not helping at all.

==

 12barblues wrote you a new arrangment for your next solo on the pipe organ.

==

And there we have it, the same sordid middle-school junk we get no matter what moniker you're using.  Go eat what a dog leaves in the grass, zouk.

Gửi từ iPad của tôi

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Don't you just want to punch him in his smirky little monkey face?

Posted by: info53 | June 16, 2010 5:33 PM |

_______________________

Info53 You are a racist.


Please leave the country immediately.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cilizza is not a reporter; he is a Republican Strategist.

Posted by: vigor | June 16, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

And it would be disconerting if that psychotic SOB Netanyahu didn't have contempt for Obama, the first president in memory not waiting hand and foot on that nasty little apartheid Middle Eastern nation with its pretences toward top tier democracy. Settler-boy calls Obama an "Arab." Let him have all the contempt he wants, if the USA pulled the plug Israel would be history, and good riddance.

Gửi từ iPad của tôi

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 6:27 PM

-------

More anti-Semitic, Helen Thomas rants. Yes, all the Muslim countries will love us if we just blow off Israel. Don't be too surprised to see the entire Middle East go up in smoke if Obama keeps bumbling. 12barblues wrote you a new arrangment for your next solo on the pipe organ.

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

The democrats are desperate


They are lying -


and grasping at weakness - trying to make it seem like a good policy.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Some people may have despised Bush, but they respected him. World leaders from Israel to Britain to Iran and North Korea have nothing but contempt for Obama

==

Your memory is selective, zouk.

World leaders never respected Bush, even Musharref publicly said he was an easily manipulated idiot.  All Putin had to do to make Bush sit up and beg was borrow a crucifix for a few hours.

No, world leaders feared the guy, and not for in intellect but for his boorish recklessness, the swaggering preening frat boy fresh from the kegger with the nuclear triggers sticking out out of his belt.

And it would be disconerting if that psychotic SOB Netanyahu didn't have contempt for Obama, the first president in memory not waiting hand and foot on that nasty little apartheid Middle Eastern nation with its pretences toward top tier democracy.  Settler-boy calls Obama an "Arab."  Let him have all the contempt he wants, if the USA pulled the plug Israel would be history, and good riddance.

Gửi từ iPad của tôi

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Rememeber back when we were uncertain if brigade was just another zouk moniker? No longer.

The raw idiocy is a dead giveaway.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Don't you just want to punch him in his smirky little monkey face?

Posted by: info53 | June 16, 2010 5:33 PM |

More racist talk about your president? Shame on you. Next you'll be making fun of Michelle.

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

haveaheart wrote,
"And yet, this president has done more in 18 months to improve the lives of Americans than three Bush administrations did over 12 years, and he has also recovered both our credibility and our image abroad, repairing the damage that 43 did as he blithely ran roughshod over all of our allies."

-------

LOL! I notice you're a little short on specifics about all the wonderful things he's done. Recovering our credibility? Like the way he's holding the feet of North Korea and Iran to the fire? And how about that 10% unemployment and the mounting debt. We sure got a lot of bang for the buck out of the stimulus money. How are we doing in Afghanistan since he tripled down? Some people may have despised Bush, but they respected him. World leaders from Israel to Britain to Iran and North Korea have nothing but contempt for Obama. Richly deserved. A community organizer in chief.

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Let's face facts here:

There were a lot of problems when Obama came to office. There was a two-front war. The economy had tanked. People were concerned about health care costs.

Those are hard problems to solve. No doubt.

So it's reasonable to ask what progress the president has made in the three big issues that got him elected:

1) War - Gitmo is open. Turns out the problem is way harder to solve that Obama thought. Obama has expanded the war, and has committed more troops. Turns out it was a lot harder than Obama thought

2) Economy - the president got a $1T bill passed to help. It didn't work. Unemployment is higher, the market is about the same, and so we're not any better off than we were when we started, but we are $1T poorer

3) Health Care - A health care bill was passed that solved a few defects of the current system, but at a terrible cost of over $1T, so it will be significantly more expensive than the current system (which was the major problem of the current system).

Lets assume that Obama is committed to making the country better. I believe he is and wants to do the right thing. The question is, what *has* he made better? Ask the old Ronald Reagan question: Are you better off now than you were 2 years ago.

I think despite his assumed competence he has failed at everything he's touched so far. And when the Gulf crisis came, he failed again.

As a taxpayer and citizen, I'm frankly tired of him blaming the last guy and telling me how hard this stuff is. If he didn't want the job he shouldn't have run. If he doesn't want the job he should resign.

Like the character in the Godfather said "...You can act like a man!".

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | June 16, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

It was precisely because Obama didn't put enough effort into inspecting and repairing the MMS that we have this environmental disaster. Of course, he did have a few distractions - war, economic collapse, nuclear programs, the worst Israeli government in its history.

Obama's perhaps not the world's best landlord - but thank the lord that loony tunes McCain is not in charge!

Posted by: j3hess | June 16, 2010 4:58 PM
------

A few distractions, none of which he seems capable of dealing with. He's over his head. You wouldn't want McCain? No, we sure wouldn't want anyone who might actually have a clue.

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Limits? As in statute of limitations? There cannot be limitations until Bush and Cheney and the whole nasty gang that started a war because they wanted to, out-sourced the army, wanted to destroy Social Security, Medicare and government in general, sold out completely to big business, became Big Oil's eager houseboy are brought to justice and given sentences that fit their crimes there must be no "limitations" on making public and not letting the world forget their horrendous crimes. Limitations, indeed.

Posted by: m_richert | June 16, 2010 4:41 PM
-----

I guess you didn't get Leichtman1's memo about due process. Bring forth your evidence if you have any, bozo.

Come to think of it, where IS Leichtman1? He was here earlier threatening to boycott the blog unless 37th was banned. Maybe he's now posting under another troll moniker. He should just haul his freight and come back when some of his favorite candidates---Harry Reid, Jack Conway, Bill White, Barack Obama, et al.---aren't way upside down in the polls. That will likely be never.

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is nothing but MASTER-BAITERS !!!

...when they should be working for ALL the American People - not just Bernard Madoff.

There are no limits of blame for George W. Bush.

The Great GOP Recession of 2007 has financially ruined American for a generation.

Posted by: danglingwrangler | June 16, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"No, he has other personality defects that cause people to dislike and distrust him, regardless of how much or little Bush bashing he does."

Like that he's black?

Posted by: drindl | June 16, 2010 3:58 PM
-----

You'll get a big old kiss from broadwayjoe for that, even though you and he are the ones who routinely inject race into the discussion. But hey, if you don't have the facts on your side, what better way to pee on the conversation than to scream racism? Especially if your white, eh Drindl?

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

oh yeah and you should change the title of your article to...

"Cleaning up after W."

Maybe Obama could be doing other, more noble things if he wasn't spending all of his time cleaning up after Bush.

Posted by: srsos | June 16, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Lost in the poll hype is the fact that Bush left Obama a pile of crises and only a decorticate would think that the problems in the economy were Obama's doing.

But he could have addressed them better, pumped money in at the bottom instead of the top. And a few bankers in prison would have been very satisfying.

Hey, why read zouk at all? It's the same garbage over and over, just like the meth addict. We all know he's sick and we all know he's lying about his "life.". Our lives are short enough, just skim past.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 3:01 PM
-------

All presidents face problems. Life goes on. Some can deal with it; some, like Obama, come up short.

Noacoler is another you can skim past and miss nothing but simmering hatred for our way of life and system of government. His meager means allow him no more than a Spartan existence, with much of his summer spent down at "the gym" (the YMCA) where he revels in the air-conditioning he cannot afford in his apartment.

He comes here to post bits of snark and insult his intellectual superiors. Future prospects are even more grim now that he's been picked clean by some scammer selling "retirement properties" in Vietnam---the Orient's version of the Brooklyn Bridge and Florida swampland. Fleeced like a lamb; skinned like a squirrel; plucked like a chicken. Poor sap.

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

It's too bad that nobody at the Post has the incentive to really investigate what the Obama has done or not done with respect to the MMS. How many political appointees were asked to resign after the change in Administration? How many were replaced and what were the qualifications of those replacements? What have they done to root out the deadwood and ethically challenged on staff? Member of the Senior Executive Service who are not political appointees can be moved into new jobs at will, and they can shifted to other agencies. Has the Obama administration moved ANY of the SES employees at MMS who weren't doing any adequate job or who were industry captives? How about some REPORTING, Post?

Posted by: WashingtonDame | June 16, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

This is silly, the idea of giving Bush even more slack. You folks in the media gave Bush a free ride for eight years. Treated him like royalty while he continually chose corporate interests over those of the American people.

You in the Big Media, with your short term memories can't be bothered to think that Bush had no problem blaming Clinton for 9-11. Big Media in this country today only serves it's corporate masters. Gone are the days of any normal American thinking he or she has a friend, a watchdog in the Big Media. Bush and his father have treated the American people like their servants. Conservatives have been in power more often than not for the better part of fifty years and what do we have to show for it? If republican rule was so great, all it took was Bush leaving office for everything to suddenly collapse?

Get real, please.

Posted by: srsos | June 16, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"Are you nuts? The stimulus money is gone; the unemployment rate hovers around 10%; the stock market isn't much higher than it was when Obama was elected; Obama has piled on more debt and still wants ANOTHER stimulus. You call this progress?

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse"

Really, Brigade? Conservatives criticized the stimulus package specifically because it DIDN'T spend the money all at once. What do you think those deficits are you keep complaining about?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 16, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

"The only problem is that even before Bush's administration started, the dotcom bubble was bursting and the country was headed into recession. Less than nine months into Bush's first term, 9/11 happened. Yet whom do liberals blame for government lapses that led to 9/11? Bush. Whom do they blame for the economic downturn in the early 2000s? Bush. Fine, so let's use the liberal standard then...everything after Obama's inauguration is the fault of Obama."

blert,

While spreading misinformation may advance your cause, ultimately you aren't going to succeed in rewriting history.

1. If, in fact, the country was already heading into a recession when Bush took office, how come this Harvard MBA spent 8 years doing all the wrong things to stem it? Aren't smart Harvard business guys supposed to have a handle on the finer points of economics?

2. Liberals don't blame Bush for 9/11 (although, given Poppy Bush's cozy ties with the Saudis, dating back to his days as CIA director, they could make a good case for it). They blame Bush for how he handled the U.S. response. Instead of finishing the job he started in Afghanistan, he got us into another war (on false pretenses) that we didn't need to fight, while abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban and allowing al-Qaeda to gain a foothold and proliferate into new areas. We've now got two ugly wars ongoing; one should have been completed 8 years ago; the other should never have been launched.

3. Yes, liberals blame the Bush administration for what you quaintly call the "economic downturn" of the early 2000s. Refer back to point #1. Then go back and take a look at Bush's response to the Enron disaster, which cost tens of thousands of people their entire pensions. Then follow the breadcrumbs forward to 2008, when the U.S. economy completely tanked. By then, our financial sector had been under Bush's management for 8 years.

You bet liberals blame him.

Posted by: haveaheart | June 16, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"You really are a fool, aren't you ?"

No, but I know how to get you Bushies goats. Thanks for the response, made my day.

Posted by: info53 | June 16, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Drindl wrote,
"It's important to let people know HOW and WHY this happened, so we can put in place regulations to ensure it doesn't happen again."

------

But all your energy is expended trying to make sure people DON'T know what happened and why. As Halliburton pointed out, BP did NOT follow necessary safeguards in sinking the well. Who issued the permits and waivers to BP for this well? Obama's people. The problem isn't a lack of regulation; it's that regulations were not enforced. And then endless dawdling after the accident instead of prompt clean-up.

Drindl continually spams this blog with winger crap cut and pasted from other sites. Bitterness over the miserable hand fate has dealt her has reduced her to a seething, simmering ball of hatred, striking out at other posters and showing utter contempt for anything to do with capitalism, conservatism or patriotism. How truly pathetic.

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

info53


Bush was a crook ?

Would you please back up that statement with some facts ????


You really are a fool, aren't you ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Good choice of pictures of Bush to illustrate the article. Don't you just want to punch him in his smirky little monkey face?

Posted by: info53 | June 16, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama's people AT MMS DID NOT MAKE SURE THE SAFETY INSPECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED PROPERLY - OBAMA IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OIL SPILL AND THE EXPLOSION.


How is electing an inexperienced an unqualified person working for you now ???

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Politically, you can't afford to keep blaming Bush, even though it really IS his fault. In normal times, sloughing off problems on a predecessor was politics as usual, but Bush really was a crook and really did nearly ruin the country.

Alas, Obama just has to move along and deal with the mess. Too few people are politically savvy enough to understand what a mess Bush left, so it will diminish Obama if he keeps bringing it up.

Same problem the guy who followed Hitler had to deal with, no doubt.

Posted by: info53 | June 16, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"But, Obama has laid more at Bush's feet than most" - Perhaps because more than any president except for perhaps Hoover, Bush did more to ruin this country than any other president. It will take probably longer than Obama's term in office, whether 4 or 8 years, and probably a couple of successors as well.

But on the other hand Bush's many follies and stupidities does not give Obama a free pass. His Secretary of the Interior holds partial blame for this mess in the Gulf.

Posted by: dre7861 | June 16, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Most people know the economy does not turn around overnight, and that slow, steady progress is preferable to a false "quick fix."

Posted by: skoopsl8 | June 16, 2010 1:55 PM
-----

Are you nuts? The stimulus money is gone; the unemployment rate hovers around 10%; the stock market isn't much higher than it was when Obama was elected; Obama has piled on more debt and still wants ANOTHER stimulus. You call this progress?

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"Democratic political operatives make clear that the "blame Bush" strategy will also be at the center of their messaging heading into the 2010 midterms."


Democrats have a messaging problem.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is. Voters want solutions, not finger-pointing. If you want a message for the midterms, point to how you want to solve the myriad problems we face. Spending time blaming the other guy is a defacto consession of the election. Dem strategists are fools, who are apparently incapable of learning from past mistakes.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 16, 2010 1:52 PM
------

You're on the money, bsimon1; but if things don't turn for the better, expect the same message in 2012: it took Bush 8 years to screw things up and it will take us 8 years to straighten it out.

Posted by: Brigade | June 16, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I hope President Obama and the Dem Congress continue blaming Bush in both the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Won't be many Dems left in office using that strategy.
Only a small group of voters care about who caused a problem after a year. Most voters just care about whether the current Government is fixing the problem.
Refighting the last war is often a problem both for the military and politicians. It's comforting and tempting, especialy if the last war was a victory. Most voters recognize the last war ended long before the politicians recognize it.
As Bush himself said: "Bring it on."

Posted by: jfv123 | June 16, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Under the Obama administration, the government is doing such a good job that it's decided to reward itself. Last year, Uncle Sam paid out $408 million in bonuses to 1.3 million federal workers, according to the Asbury Park Press, which obtained the information through a Freedom of Information Act request. That's about $80 million more than the previous year. About one in four federal workers received a bonus, and awards ranged from $25 to, in the case of one lucky State Department worker, $94,500.

That $408 million figure only counts bonuses that were handed out to about 65 percent of the federal work force. The FOI request didn't cover awards handed out by the Defense and Treasury departments, security agencies, the White House, Congress and various other federal agencies and commissions. In 2008, the last year information was available, the Department of Defense alone handed out $92 million in bonuses to its 687,000 employees.

Federal bonuses are being doled out liberally, even as federal salaries are exploding. From December 2007 through June 2009, the number of federal workers earning six figures increased from 14 to 19 percent. In 2008, average federal compensation, including pay and benefits, was $119,982 -- considerably more than the $59,909 average in the private sector, according to the Commerce

Posted by: Cornell1984 | June 16, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

haveaheart

You have to grow up


You and your guy has to take responsibility

Obama's people at MMS were supposed to do the safety inspections CORRECTLY - it was an issue - it was on the front page of the Washington Post

You are a complete fool if you think that Obama should not take responsibility.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

It would be nice if someone did some reporting instead of pontificating about MMS. It was recently reported that MMS had relatively few inspectors to inspect a huge number of wells. Before we blame either Bush or Obama, could someone tell us how many inspectors MMS had during the 8 years of the Bush administration?

Posted by: ad9inaz | June 16, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Hmmmm. Considering the vast majority of Republicon candidates are still trying the shovel the same elephant manure provided in abundance by the Bush Misadministration I would think it's a FAIR comparison. The GOP has nothing new, only the same terminally greedy, racist, corporate-butt-kissing that we had with Mr. Flight Suit.

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | June 16, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Bush never blamed Clinton for 9/11 - even though Clinton spent years pulling our intelligence assets out of the Middle East.


Bush set the standard for being a man and not blaming anyone else - taking responsibility.

I guess that is way too much to ask from the metrosexual we have in there now.

.
___________________________________


This is actually a character flaw of Obama's.

Pretty simple.


Obama needs to take responsibility for things - and everytime you hear him or his people say they "inherited" a problem - it just does not work.


The really sad thing is Obama is defining himself as incompetent.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Put this in the context of how Cheney turned energy policy-writing over to the industry and the non-existent enforcement of mining rules that cost real lives in West Virginia and Utah in recent years ... and its a no brainer that this is a goper problem. Republicans have controlled the WH and the Executive Branch for 28 of the last 40.5 years. 'Nuff said about culpability.

Posted by: ImaDem | June 16, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"Blaming Bush -- at least in part -- for the government failures made plain by the oil spill is simply the latest example of the president and his senior aides making the case to the American public that their actions in office are largely in reaction to the problems the last president created."

Excuse me, but pretty much every serious political commentator, prior to the 2008 presidential election (yourself included, Chris), acknowledged that it would take many years -- probably decades -- and a great deal of sweat, tears, and deprivation to correct the mistakes of the Bush administration, so phenomenal were the blunders. (There was a reason that 43 was asked to stay away from the Republican convention. Even his own kind realized how badly he had screwed up.)

But now, only 1-1/2 years into his first term, President Obama is being lambasted by everyone for not living -- and leading -- up to expectations.

Gays are angry about DADT; liberals are angry that we're not out of Afghanistan; everyone has some complaint about health care legislation; and the gulf crisis is being laid at Obama's feet, as if he were responsible for the all the energy policies of the Bush years (Poppy included) which directly affected how oil acquisition is done.

And yet, this president has done more in 18 months to improve the lives of Americans than three Bush administrations did over 12 years, and he has also recovered both our credibility and our image abroad, repairing the damage that 43 did as he blithely ran roughshod over all of our allies.

Yes, maybe "Obama has laid more at Bush's feet than most," but Bush and his administration screwed up at lot more than most.

I'm surprised to see even the serious political commentators at WAPO piling on this president with the same capricious disregard that the pundits bring to their task.

For shame, Chris Cillizza. For shame.

Posted by: haveaheart | June 16, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Good point (elections are about the future), bad metaphor:

"It's like moving into a new house and not liking the colors the previous owner painted the walls. But, Obama has laid more at Bush's feet than most."

It's like moving into a new house and finding half the wiring torn out, leaks in the plumbing, and a crack in the foundation.

A bad paint job is no threat to the integrity of the house or its function of providing shelter - you can overlook it and live with it.

It was precisely because Obama didn't put enough effort into inspecting and repairing the MMS that we have this environmental disaster. Of course, he did have a few distractions - war, economic collapse, nuclear programs, the worst Israeli government in its history.

Obama's perhaps not the world's best landlord - but thank the lord that loony tunes McCain is not in charge!

Posted by: j3hess | June 16, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

This Blame-Bush strategy increasingly only works among people who are die-hard supporters of Obama anyway. More and more, those in the middle of the political spectrum aren't buying it, and come election time, very few will still be voting against Bush. Most probably realize that Democrats and Republicans alike have colluded to generate the economic woes, and as much as they may not have liked Bush, it's no longer a question of shifting away from Bush policies.

Or maybe it is. Maybe Obama should run against Bush...which really means running against himself. After all, Obama vowed we'd be out of Iraq right now, but we're still on Bush's timetable (or maybe even a little behind it). Guantanamo was supposed to be closed months ago, but it's still open, and there are no firm plans to shut it down. The warrantless wiretapping and other abuses under the PATRIOT Act that had people angry...Obama has embraced and defended all of those, too. In responding to the economic crisis, Bush's TARP bailout and Obama's stimulus are cut from the same mold--throw money at it. Instead of rejecting No Child Left Behind, Obama has embraced that full-heartedly, too, supporting only a few minor tweaks. When Afghanistan started to go poorly, Obama's approach was essentially a surge in troop numbers, a la Bush in Iraq. Etc., etc., etc.

So Bush was the most horrible president ever and left us with all of these problems, but Obama is governing just like him more often than not?

Obama seems to operate under the notion that repeating something often enough will cause people to actually believe it. Blame Bush, blame Bush, blame Bush. Say it enough, and people will accept it.

The only problem is that even before Bush's administration started, the dotcom bubble was bursting and the country was headed into recession. Less than nine months into Bush's first term, 9/11 happened. Yet whom do liberals blame for government lapses that led to 9/11? Bush. Whom do they blame for the economic downturn in the early 2000s? Bush. Fine, so let's use the liberal standard then...everything after Obama's inauguration is the fault of Obama.

Liberals would blame Bush for all of human history if they could, but it's little more than grandstanding. It's a tired, old, broken record at this point.

Posted by: blert | June 16, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Limits? As in statute of limitations? There cannot be limitations until Bush and Cheney and the whole nasty gang that started a war because they wanted to, out-sourced the army, wanted to destroy Social Security, Medicare and government in general, sold out completely to big business, became Big Oil's eager houseboy are brought to justice and given sentences that fit their crimes there must be no "limitations" on making public and not letting the world forget their horrendous crimes. Limitations, indeed.

Posted by: m_richert | June 16, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

>>> "No, he has other personality defects that cause people to dislike and distrust him, regardless of how much or little Bush bashing he does."

Like that he's black?

Yep, that's it! You have detected, as all liberals are able to do, the subtle racial code implicit in the message. Bravo!

Seriously, why are so many liberals so eager to attempt to use race as a battering ram? And why are they so often the first to bring up race?

Posted by: twasneva | June 16, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Bush II was clearly one of the worst presidents in our history so far.
However, Obama is being too simplistic and not accepting responsibility, in so frequently blaming Bush for nearly everything.

The blame for the Great Recession is shared by Democrats and Republicans, beginning with the Clinton administration, overwhelming bipartisan majorities repealing the Glass Steagall act. Democrats in Congress, as much as Republicans and greedy banks demanded lenient terms for homebuyers, to spread home ownership.

Obama and Democrats in Congress do not want more people to know these basic facts. They prefer most people are ignorant, so they can scapegoat Bush II for all economic problems. Scapegoating seems to be favorite political strategy of Obama and high-level officials, blaming teachers for the failing performances of millions of students and their parents for not being more involved in their children's educations.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | June 16, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The Food chat was a hoot today. Someone wrote in claiming that the Post's bias against reviewing wines east of the Misshippy was liberal bias. Then wrote in later as a second person supporting the original.

+-+-+-+-+

Q. Did you actually read my original post? I was talking columns devoted to wines East of the Mississippi and local wines 10 weeks out 12. Read my original post again. Reading comprehension is fundamental if you are going to slam me. I have read every wine spirit column in the Food section for since you took over. I miss Ben. You could do 9mos of columns on local wines and not mention Cali, WA or Europe. Now do you get my point. Typical liberal bias.

A. Joe Yonan writes:

Yeah, I read your original post. Go away now.

+-+-+-+-+

Q. You perceive the WP and Dave perceive you are giving locals wines enough coverage but you readers perceive it differently. I have to agree with the original poster the WP and the Food section does not devote enough time to local wines and wines East of the Mississippi...

A. Joe Yonan writes:

Nice try, but we know you ARE the original poster. Think we can't see your IP address? Well, we can.

+-+-+-+-+

Posted by: JakeD3 | June 16, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed no one remembers the recession Bush inherited when he took office. But I plan to blame Obama for every thing I do wrong. If I stub my toe, I will blame Obama. Why should I take responsibility for anything? Why, all I have to do is blame it on Obama. Bush even got blamed for the weather so why not blame Obama on the gulf well explosion? I will not hesitate to blame everything on him. This well disaster took place under his watch. It was his agency that let safety measures wane. Yes, this is Obama's fault.
But back to reality, where is the action Obama? We are sick of the talk. If the Feds will not do anything, then get out of the way of the states. They would not allow the states to build sand dredged barriers unless they had an environmental study? Is that just plain stupid or what? And Obama is sitting there protecting the unions not allowing the waiver to let international ships who have volunteered to help. This is pathetic and shameful. Remember all those Democrats down there on the Louisiana coast. I can tell you they are so angry with Obama they are steaming. Obama is toast in the next election. His goose is cooked.

Posted by: greatgran1 | June 16, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Armpeg wrote

"This bad economy is a direct result of Obama's Socialist Communist policies ..."

I have yet to see any clear critical analysis -- beyond name-calling and stereotyping -- by the opposition of how Obama's policies are "socialist" or "communist."

tk, PhD

Posted by: tkavanag | June 16, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

one of President Obama's bread and butter moves is to blame everyone other than himself for everything wrong that goes on, yet accepts all the credit when things go well.... most people blamed Bush for katrina and all of the other world problems... he was an easy target... the financial mess that we have at our door,is a direct result of Clinton and the policy of having everyone be able to own a home whether they could afford it or not, the clinton free trade agreements cost massive job losses.. Bush made blunders, but so did everyone else that held the title of President..

Posted by: icyrebel | June 16, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Noa, I was just curious if you knew anything about Dan Reichert in WA-8. It's one of the targeted districts to flip from red to blue. I think it's also like the fifth most Dem district (in terms of Obama's vote share) to be held by a Republican (Cao, Djou, Kirk, and Castle being the top four)

Posted by: DDAWD | June 16, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"No, he has other personality defects that cause people to dislike and distrust him, regardless of how much or little Bush bashing he does."

Like that he's black?

Posted by: drindl | June 16, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Bush never blamed Clinton for 9/11 - even though Clinton spent years pulling our intelligence assets out of the Middle East.

Bush set the standard for being a man and not blaming anyone else - taking responsibility.


I guess that is way too much to ask from the metrosexual we have in there now.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 16, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Increasingly, it doesn't matter whether or when Obama blames Bush. Pelosi has laid out the "high ground" on the issue; she'll blame Bush until all problems disappear.

What Obama should be focusing on is his poll numbers which show Americans just don't like what he is serving. He was, after all, elected to fix all the "Bush Problems" and until very recently he had a filibuster proof majority in Congress which should have allowed him to sprinkle unlimited fairy dust on every problem.

No, he has other personality defects that cause people to dislike and distrust him, regardless of how much or little Bush bashing he does.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | June 16, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The energy summit hosted by Shrub and Crazy Cheney, of which they refused to name who was present, led to deregulation of some oil industry standards. These led directly to what happened in the gulf. Blaming Shrub and the republicants is justifiable, but the American public has very short memories, and they're more interested in what happens today, than who did what yesterday.
Shrub and his fellow idiots set the country back 20 years. If Republicants have their way, we'll be back in the 1900's soon enough. Traitors.

Posted by: COLEBRACKETT | June 16, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The ballad of George Walker Bush is a sad song.

Posted by: whocares666 | June 16, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Armpeg wrote: "Every 2 term president leaves a down-turn in the economy for the in-comming [sic] one, so Obama getting an economy in decline, as he did, is not unusual."

I doubt you even believed that as you wrote it. Clinton in 2000. Reagan in 1980. Johnson in 1968. Eisenhower in 1960. Truman in 1952. About the only one who left the economy in such a shambles is W.

Posted by: JakeD3 | June 16, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

True, but Bush has laid more problems at Obama's feet than most. The extent of problems left for Bush came to a few missing "W" keys.

Posted by: JakeD3 | June 16, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD: not so much. Don't read the papers here, they're silly. Goodman is well named, came to our house personally when I wrote him, Inslee is a good guy too, but I don't follow the state stuff.

Zouk: "My friend," hahahahahah yeah right.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Even Republicans don't beleive Angle will win.

I read this morning [somewhere] that after that meeting she had in DC, some of them, like Scott Brown -- had sent out word they would NOT be campaigning for her. I think that was in Roll Call.

But John Ensign is going to be! how exciting is that?

Posted by: drindl | June 16, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Every 2 term president leaves a down-turn in the economy for the in-comming one, so Obama getting an economy in decline, as he did, is not unusual. What is unusual with this bad economy though, is what happened afterwards, done by Obama's Socialist economic policies of trying (and succeeding) of re-distributing all wealth, nationalizing private industries, and making war on the very people who create all the wealth, create the jobs, and who made us the greatest most powerfull country in the history of the planet. This bad economy is a direct result of Obama's Socialist Communist policies, and his, and his ahole clique of adoring defenders here and in the Democrap--controlled Main Stream Media are blaming G.W. Bush for it, because they're circling the wagons for their incompetent Socialist president.
What it all boils down to, is that when G.W. Bush (or any Republican) was in the WH, the buck stopped at his desk, but when their guy Obama is in there, the buck stops everywhere EXEPT at their guy's desk. These guys are like little children all pointing fingers at each other, telling everybody 'It's not my fault!'

Posted by: armpeg | June 16, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

My friend who just returned from Vietnam told me that the men there do no work at all. they force the women to support them while they sit around and drink coffee all day and gamble and smoke. sounds like a liberal paradise all right. a perfect place for the terminally lazy and inept to find a lasting home. Especially if you're sort of a man but not really.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 16, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Noa, do you follow the Congressional elections in Washington at all?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 16, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone actually believe Angle is going to unseat Harry Reid? If her muzzle slips she'll just provide attack ad footage and she can't get votes from silence.

Way to go, Nevada.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Poor lonely Ped.

Still not a friend in the world, huh Ped? Maybe later, if you get too hot, you can scamper over to the gym, to chastise people who avoid you, in cool comfort.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 16, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Lost in the poll hype is the fact that Bush left Obama a pile of crises and only a decorticate would think that the problems in the economy were Obama's doing.

But he could have addressed them better, pumped money in at the bottom instead of the top. And a few bankers in prison would have been very satisfying.

Hey, why read zouk at all? It's the same garbage over and over, just like the meth addict. We all know he's sick and we all know he's lying about his "life.". Our lives are short enough, just skim past.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 16, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"(Worth noting: All presidents -- particularly when they hail from a different party than their predecessor -- tend to blame some of the problems the country faces on the last guy. It's like moving into a new house and not liking the colors the previous owner painted the walls. But, Obama has laid more at Bush's feet than most.)"

Since George was in a great hurry during his eight years of being responsible to do lots of things we could then regret at our leisure, he certainly deserves more blame than most.

Blaming Bush, in and of itself isn't much of a strategy, but blaming Bush, and running bon doing things that are needed to clean up his mess IS a strategy, and the republicans monolithic front in opposing measures to clean up Bush's mess probably helps the Democrats. "WE are trying to clean up this mess and THEY are trying to make it last as long as they can" is a very good basis to run on.

When your Republican opponent does a Portman, talks about job loss and hopelessness, and then says his plan to restore jobs is to cut taxes that pay for unemployment benefits, (Portman's current ad)you get lots of material to picture your opponent as clueless and pro business, anti labor.

People are still mad about enough of the republican misadministration of Bush and his majority Congress that it as a valid campaign issue, if the dems can exploit it.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 16, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

skoopsl8 writes
"Failed Bush policies led us to this point -- that's a fact. Force the GOP to say what it would have done differently to solve the problem and they self-destruct."


That's where the Dem message fails. I'm agree with your point; my point is that its not reaching voters. The Repubs, for years, have been far more effective at boiling their message down to a soundbite that resonates with voters. Dems aren't doing that at as well. Its annoying, but you need a catchy phrase or slogan to make the sale.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 16, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

hahaha, zook is blaming Obama for stuff that happened before he took office. Poor zook, what a worthless buffoon. Never convinced anyone of anything, not even his prowess with women.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 16, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

The blaming of MMS on GWB was especially tone deaf, because the MMS continued to be corrupt under BHO after he campaigned specifically on cleaning house there.

I agree with Bsimon - time for Ds to take on the mantle of leadership.

The "Economist", which endorsed BHO, which backed health care, which backed TARP and the stimulus, now has taken to calling BHO a "statist" - sort of like Armpeg and Leapin do. However, they see the Rs as offering nothing at all. I think they want David Cameron for Prez.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 16, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

I understand your post, but how do you insist that she opened her mouth again, especially when the cut and pasted paragraph is from an interview back in January (I guess that’s new math).

Posted by: sliowa1 | June 16, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

According to the contemptible loon drivl, all we need is more government and more regulations. that way the meth heads and porn surfers who suck off the government dole can continue doing nothing at MMS and SEC and all the rest.

It always worked so well in the past. HA! Incorrigble nincompoops.

whenever a liberal begins to spout off economics, it is perfectly acceptable to watch cartoons on TV, there is simply more intellect there.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 16, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

oops, Angle opened her mouth again...
"
Yesterday, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent noted a January radio interview in which Angle said "if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies." "I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out," said Angle a second later."

Posted by: drindl | June 16, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

If it happened during Bush (recession) he will get blamed. If it happened during Obama (oil spill) he will get blamed for it.

And I don't think the Dem strategy is so much "blame Bush" as it is "compare to Bush" Obviously there is some blame Bush in talk of the recession, but a lot of it will be to remind voters that the Republicans want to do exactly what they did when they were dismantling the country.

It's interesting how this will play out. Usually the party in power loses seats in the midterms. However, the party that is out of power is the one that is being overwhelmingly blamed for the state of the economy, which is looking like it will be THE issue in November. Not oilspills, not foreign policy or any that. It will be jobs and unless Republicans can convince Americans between now and November that this economy is Obama's fault, it will seriously stunt any kind of wave that this election is supposed to be.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 16, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Easy, blame BP.

Until something good happens, which is when Obungler will step in to take the credit again. Until then, the long pointy finger is deployed.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 16, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1: You have to follow the logic. GOP criticizes Obama for massive spending. But spending was necessary to revive economy ... it was the solution to problems created by Bush policies. The alternative (not spending and thus allowing major banks and domestic auto companies to fail) would have cost millions more jobs than the path chosen (in automotive and spin-off jobs alone). Failed Bush policies led us to this point -- that's a fact. Force the GOP to say what it would have done differently to solve the problem and they self-destruct.

Posted by: skoopsl8 | June 16, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

what marie said:

"Relative to oil and gas deregulation specifically, two oil men, Bush and Cheney, did tremendous damage to what was left of the relevant regulatory infrastructure. This would have taken more than a year to fix if there was a real effort in that direction. These are facts whether the nation knows them or not...but you do don't you?

Now your point was? "

First of all, this is not 'blaming Bush.'

It's important to let people know HOW and WHY this happened, so we can put in place regulations to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Otherwise, the Republicans will manage to strangle regulation with the usual pro-corporate message about how regulations "lose jobs' which is utter BS.

Posted by: drindl | June 16, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

This BP oil spill is primarily due to Barak Obama's total ineptness and incompetence, but it figures that he, the Democrap--controlled MSM, and his adoring fans would try to load all the blame for it on G.W. Bush.
Obama is lying and full of sh** though to blame G.W. Bush for the "....difficulties at the Mineral Management Service" bullsh**, and "...emblematic of a failed philosophy..blah, blah, bullsh** on Bush, since it was Democrap Bill Clinton who signed the "Deepwater Royalty Relief Act" back in 1995 that gave the oil companies like BP, incentives to drill in deep water. This "Deepwater Royalty Relief Act" was a boon to the oil companies because it waived the 17% US Royalty Tax for all deepwater drilling, and meant that they could keep 17% more of every dollar they made. And since Clinton didn't make any changes to the "Oil Pollution Act" of 1990, it meant that the oil companies were off the hook for any liability. Needless to say, all deepwater drilling by the oil companies then had the effect that right after Bill Clinton waved the 17% Royalty Tax, and didn't change the Oil Pollution Act, all deepwater drilling expanded greatly.

Posted by: armpeg | June 16, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe that is because Bush screwed up more things than most? And as they say if the shoe fits..."


Ok. Agreed. Bush screwed up a bunch. Now explain what's going to be done about it. If the Dems stop after step 1, voters will go elsewhere.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 16, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris: The poll numbers are interesting, but facts are more telling. Every time a GOP operative dismisses the "failed bailout" and ridicules Obama for blaming Bush, Democrats need only remind voters when the Great Recession began (Nov-Dec. 2007, more than a year before Obama took office). Most people know the economy does not turn around overnight, and that slow, steady progress is preferable to a false "quick fix."

Posted by: skoopsl8 | June 16, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

ug. concession, not consession. who wrote that?

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 16, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"Democratic political operatives make clear that the "blame Bush" strategy will also be at the center of their messaging heading into the 2010 midterms."


Democrats have a messaging problem.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is. Voters want solutions, not finger-pointing. If you want a message for the midterms, point to how you want to solve the myriad problems we face. Spending time blaming the other guy is a defacto consession of the election. Dem strategists are fools, who are apparently incapable of learning from past mistakes.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 16, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"But, Obama has laid more at Bush's feet than most"

Maybe that is because Bush screwed up more things than most? And as they say if the shoe fits...

Posted by: AndyR3 | June 16, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility -- a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves."


Chris you can do better.


You know that since Reagan, deregulation was the operating philosophy in Washington and that probably all government agencies were weakened as result. It is a historical fact and that is what the President was clearly referring to, not just the Bush Presidency and its eight years.

Relative to oil and gas deregulation specifically, two oil men, Bush and Cheney, did tremendous damage to what was left of the relevant regulatory infrastructure. This would have taken more than a year to fix if there was a real effort in that direction. These are facts whether the nation knows them or not...but you do don't you?

Now your point was?

Posted by: mariewilson11 | June 16, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

This site posted a copy of the White House "battle plan" this morning:

http://peacemoonbeam.typepad.com/scooters_report/2010/06/obama-address-bp-sucks-i-have-a-plan.html

Posted by: phxazbob | June 16, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company