Guess who also wanted a president to fail?; Update: And the military? Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll added

posted at 9:39 am on March 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Patterico dusts off a 2006 poll from Fox News that plumbs the history of wishing failure a little more thoroughly than the media seems to want to do on their own.  The question of wishing success or failure is not new; Fox explicitly asked that very question to its survey respondents.  Fifty-one percent of Democrats wanted to see George Bush fail:

Even 34% of independents said they wanted to see Bush fail.  This came after Katrina and in the middle of the deluge of sectarian violence in Iraq, and not long before Bush’s second midterms.  Three months later, Republicans lost Congress and Donald Rumsfeld got the boot.  Bush was not terribly popular then, and it didn’t get better for him afterwards.

We didn’t hear screams of outrage in the media when this survey showed a majority of Democrats wanting “our President” to fail.  Nor should we have; our democratic republic uses competing political interests as its own check on extremism.  Some people had a legitimate policy interest in hoping that Bush would fail, and some had less legitimate reasons, but few screeched “TREASON” at these results.  No one in the media found the idea that an opponent of Bush might wish him failure particularly noteworthy in 2006, either.

Now the 51% of Democrats who wanted Bush to fail in 2006 suddenly get the vapors when the tables turn and the hero of Hope and Change is in the White House.  Maybe they’re just not used to having to play defense.  The way they act, they won’t have to play it for long.

Update: Sister Toldjah — who has a cool new design for her site — finds the same result in a 2007 poll, but this time on Iraq.  34% of Democrats wanted the new US plan (the “surge”) to fail, explicitly rooting for our military to fail.  Read the question carefully:

Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?

Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know

Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know

Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know

Independents: 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know

That isn’t asking for a prediction.  It’s asking what people want — and they wanted us to fail in Iraq.

Update II: I had the numbers reversed on the update.  51% wanted the plans to succeed, while 34% rooted for defeat.

Update III: Jon from Third Base Politics had this first, so let’s give him a big thank you!

Update IV: Here’s an AOL Hot Seat poll on the topic:

My answer: No — and neither is hoping Obama fails in his efforts to fundamentally reshape American economics and government.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

No but the Dow is down again.

Doom and gloomers.

getanidea

Fits and starts, doncha know?

swede7 on March 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Or Moby’s.

“I’m a lifelong Republican, but I hope the surge fails”

“I’m a lifelong Republican, but I’m voting for Obama”

I wonder how that’s all working out for them now? And the brilliant people who sat out the 2006 mid-terms to prove a point.

loppyd on March 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM

But but but…. you said everything was fixed!

It’s almost like you have no idea what your talking about………

Ampersand on March 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM

swede7 on March 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM

No but the Dow is down again.

Doom and gloomers.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM

What? Take a look again.
You are truly clueless.

carbon_footprint on March 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM

You are correct in that the Dow is up right now. According to my ticker it is up .4% or ~25 points. You need to look at the bigger picture though.

52wk Range: 6,443.27 – 13,191.50
Since Jan 21st Down 20% = bear market

You are right in saying that Obama did not cause the recession, and you are right that it is unrealistic to expect in thinking he could fix everything in rought 70 days. From here on out we will differ though.

The markets are all about confidence. If people believe that the economy will be better in a month or year they will spend money. If they think it will continue to tank then they will save it. Ever since Obama was elected he has told everyone how terrible the economy was. That things will continue to get worse. Does this inspire confidence?

You are probably going to say now that Obama is not in charge of the economy and his personal views have no affect on the markets. If you are thinking this; you are wrong. Michael Boskin has written an article on this in the WSJ, and he describes it much better than I could ever do. My specialty is the Roman Republic. The markets are a referendum on the policies of today. Obama, through his policies, has stated his government will not be amenable to business. When owners look to the future they only see the governments upcoming tax increases and increased costs of doing business.

Now that I have finished my post the Dow is -.4% or -25 points. It appears that my entire post to your post is now irrelevant. Much like your argument.

txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM

What? Take a look again.
You are truly clueless.

carbon_footprint on March 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM

I am truly clueless. I thought the comment I responded to was you saying the DOW was up.

carbon_footprint on March 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Stupid daylight savings time. Excuse all the typo’s from my post.

txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM

If you stop with the doom and gloom the market will go up.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Oh, goody! Another lesson on basic economics by the master. will DTMH be joining us?
Paging Dr Zero,..your presence is requested.

a capella on March 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM

txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Yeah, it is bouncing around like the last depression. I don’t think there is much forward thinking with all the toxic assets still on the books.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Just following the Alinsky/EuroFascist model. Nothing new here, we all knew all along that who the real fascists were and are.
Poster boys/girls for hypocricy!

meanwhile heretics like Rush and I are expected to shut up and mind or p’s & q’s….FAT CHANCE

stu.b.con on March 9, 2009 at 11:21 AM

I don’t think there is much forward thinking with all the toxic assets still on the books the free market about to be destroyed.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Better.

swede7 on March 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM

So, why aren’t we pushing this instead of bashing Limbaugh? It’s not hard to defend ourselves from these attacks. I guess it took a major beat down of Patterico to grow some balls. AP still needs another workover.

Blake on March 9, 2009 at 11:26 AM

If you stop with the doom and gloom the market will go up.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Everythings Ok. Nothing’s wrong. It’s all you doom-and-gloom’ers fault. Leave us alone and we will fix it. ACORN is on the job. (issued from getalife’s basement)

By Jove!!! I think I figured it out. This is either Barney “getalife” Frank or Chris “getalife” Dodd moonlighting as a troll.

Yoop on March 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Bouncing around implies that there is some form of stability. Stability implies that the market is not gaining or losing any large amounts. The record high for the Dow was set on October 9, 2007 and was 14,164.53. Right now it is at 6,623. Using basic math we find that the Dow has lost 47% of its value. That is not bouncing around, unless you define bouncing as falling off of a cliff and hitting a few ledges on the way down.

Your second item is correct which surprised me. The toxic assets are a drain on all of the banks. What has Obama done to correct this? He has told us that Geitner has a plan. We don’t have a clue as to what the plan is, but he is going to have a great one. If you had $1,000,000 to invest would you take that at face value and hope for the best?

txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 10:55 AM

I don’t want to fight the bully in order to become the new bully. I want to fight him so there are no bullies.

MadisonConservative on March 9, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Bush 1 recession 3300

buyavowel on March 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM

But the “Bush 1 recession” ended 18 months before the 1992 election. I know that was before you were born, but look up the Fed stats.

Del Dolemonte on March 9, 2009 at 11:44 AM

BTW during the 8 years DUbyah was in office, there was a very lucrative cottage industry for “Bush Is Not My President” t-shirts. It was called “patriotic dissent”.

But try and do the same thing with O’bama, and it’s suddenly “Sedition”.

Del Dolemonte on March 9, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 10:55 AM
I don’t want to fight the bully in order to become the new bully. I want to fight him so there are no bullies.

MadisonConservative on March 9, 2009 at 11:39 AM

As I said, we just fundamentaly disagree. No problem. We are both on the same side, just looking at things from differing points of view. BDS nearly cost my Son and many of his men thier lives in Iraq, so I can’t just forgive and forget the traitors and their hatred of the US Military and President Bush, if you can, great. Maybe you hade “no skin” in the game, I did and still do… Thanks for the discussion without our usual name calling.

Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Standards for thee, not for me!

leetpriest on March 9, 2009 at 11:53 AM

txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 11:37 AM

The recession was a year old when Paulson told w the banks collapsed. When banks go insolvent that leads to depression. Look at the Dow in the last depression and it bounced up and down and then bottomed out.

Now, Tim is staying the course with the Paulson plan. The question now, is he blowing it or should go for full socialization?

There is your forward thinking.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM

The president has to have a crisis to get money. And having no one in Congress to stop him we’re all screwed! You know they didn’t need signature one from the Republican side of the house for anything they’ve done thus far. They just wanted names so when the s**t hits the fan, and you know it will, the cowards didn’t want all the blame! This is going to sound mean and nasty but I hope the people who voted for the president loose everything they have!

Eyvonne on March 9, 2009 at 11:59 AM

BDS nearly cost my Son and many of his men thier lives in Iraq, so I can’t just forgive and forget the traitors and their hatred of the US Military and President Bush, if you can, great. Maybe you hade “no skin” in the game, I did and still do… Thanks for the discussion without our usual name calling.

Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM

No problem, ya bastid. :P

Seriously though, my thanks to your son for his service to this great country.

MadisonConservative on March 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Eh, dems are hypocrites what else is expected.

_____________

We can still have that “troll car bashing” fundraiser if anyone’s interested?

FontanaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Are you even reading my sources or posts? Re-read the first one again. I didn’t say it was Obama’s fault that the recession started. I said the economy started to tank when the government tried to start fixing it. You are in this mindset that since I oppose Obama than I automatically love W. I didn’t approve of his handling the economy and I certainly do not approve of Obama. Leave the economy alone and it will fix itself. For the first 150 years or so our country had zero intervention into the economy by the government. We did just fine. There were ups and down because that is how capitalism works.

Did you read the history of the Dow that I posted? You are correct that it did find its footing eventually. The bad thing about your logic is that is took around 25 years to reach what the Dow was in 1929 and it didn’t have continued increases until 1942. If anything the date when the economy started to improve strongly hints that the New Deal, socialism, and government intervention all failed miserably. What pulled us out was a war. I am unwilling to wait 15 or so years for Obama to get his act together with the economy.

txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Damn! Did Rush also just use the 51% “hope for failure” figure?

a capella on March 9, 2009 at 12:21 PM

All the Libs saying the recession “started under Bush” conveniently forget that it started when the business community realized that DEMOCRATS controlled the part of the government that makes the laws and raises the taxes. Democrats = bad economy.

SDN on March 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Nevermind that this was 6 years, and not 7 weeks, into Bush’s disastrous term.

LOL.

Constant Parrhesia on March 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM

The Drool Patrol is already shucking and jiving frantically, in a panicky attempt to collectively explain how, “see, but, it’s… like… different when WE did it, y’know…?!?”

Kent18 on March 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Seriously though, my thanks to your son for his service to this great country.

MadisonConservative on March 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Sir, you have ALWAYS stood strong for our Military, in that way you and I are Borhters, along with 99% here at HotAir! Very, very few, if any, Conservatives of ANY stripe, Moderate, Centerist… We respect our men and women… It’s our far left radical Liberals that loath the Military, the hate and blame America crowd, the Getafile and DTMH type.

Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM

txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM

I’ll take a pass on the RW spin on FDR and stay with the history books. I will stay the course with the history books on Hoover too.

I am sick and tired of reading about this bush depression and pray it ends soon.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Are you even reading my sources or posts?

txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Leftists never attempt anything so wearying as (brrr!) “reading.” They simply YouTube.

Kent18 on March 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Thanks for the link, Ed.

As I noted in my post at the time, I believed that the 15% of Democrats who “didn’t know” whether or not they wanted to President Bush’s Iraq surge plan to succeed were just as bad as the 34% who flat out admitted that they did not want it to. I mean, how can you “not know” whether or not you want our military to win in Iraq?!

SisterToldjah on March 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Getalife, hes not MY president. Sound familiar?

Speedwagon82 on March 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Can you at least wait one hundred days before blaming the President for the bush depression?

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM

I don’t think conservatives should rely on the DOW as the ultimate indicator of things. Unless Obama reestablishes the Soviet Union, of course it will go up eventually within 4 years. Even Obama can’t crush the entire American Dream of making money in everyone.

Speedwagon82 on March 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Can you at least wait one hundred days before blaming the President for the bush depression?

You mean Bammy-Mugabe, aka “Bed Crapper in Chief”?

We’re way past the “blame” stage. Every time this two-bit Malcolm X knock off flaps his gums, the markets drop 200 points.

What’s next on the Bed Crapper’s Agenda?

Let’s see, Card Check – Check. Cap and Trade – Check.

This clown is every bit as unqualified and unaccomplished as we all said he would be.

Never holding a real job in his life, curiously has seemed to make Obama unprepared for pretty much the most difficult job in the world. Who would have seen that coming?

NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Dow up.

Bush depression fixed.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM

By that standard, it was “fixed” (for a few moments at least) the first time it “bobbed” up either either with the “good news” of O’s election, or at the very least, that time it went up within a day or two of the inauguration.

Even if you’re not willing to take your logic out that far, it is good to see that you’ve at least conceded that — at least as of around 11:00 this morning — “Bush’s depsression” is no longer an apt description of market drops.

(I think I need more “quoted terms” in this “post”)

BlueCollarAstronaut on March 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

…and apparently I need to look into this “Spell Check” thingie I keep hearing about.

BlueCollarAstronaut on March 9, 2009 at 2:04 PM

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM

This will be my last post to you since you cannot make a coherent argument. I do not mind debating issues, but you are under this impression that I think W is the bestest president ever and that I only get my facts from Rush or some other such nonsense. For your information I am not a Republican. I am 100% Conservative. Whatever candidate represents my views the most is who I am going to vote for. As it stands right now it is usually Republican. If you would have asked me around 50 years ago I would have said Democrat. The parties may change, but the basic philosophy endures.

The New Deal (ND) was an unmitigated disaster for the economy. Let’s take a look at the unemployment rate. This gives us a fairly good picture at how well the economy was doing since it tells us how many people were working. Here is where I get my facts. If you notice that during the height of the ND (1932-1936) unemployment never dropped below 17%. From 1932-1935 unemployment never went below 20%. If the ND was so wonderful than why was unemployment that high? For the last half of the ND unemployment continued to fall, but never went below 10% until the start of WWII in 1939. Before you say it started in 1941 you need to remember it started when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. After the continuous bombing and blockades of the Germans, England needed as much stuff as we could sell them. To meet this need all of America’s factories started hiring again to build everything from tanks to toothbrushes.

Now your Hoover argument shows me your complete lack of understanding of history. Last week I think I remember responding to you about the misconceptions of Hoover. You also never replied to that post. In short, anytime you have someone respond to you with some semblance of hard data you respond with some asinine comment about Bush or Republican malfeasance.
In conclusion, if you want people to take your comments seriously you need to back up your rhetoric with some primary source that is not openly partisan. Notice in particular how my ideas and comments stem from a new article from a respected paper that was written by a professor or a governmental body. Until that happens you are hereby relegated to an assecula. Since I would guess your Latin skills are not up to snuff it means troll.

txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Leftists never attempt anything so wearying as (brrr!) “reading.” They simply YouTube.

Kent18 on March 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM

I’m sure some of the them read the DNC talking points before they finish copying and pasting them into chat rooms.

18-1 on March 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM

My answer: No [it’s not treason] — and neither is hoping Obama fails in his efforts to fundamentally reshape American economics and government.

The fact is, anyone who wants the ineligible, marxist Precedent to succeed is a traitor, since the Precedent is an enemy of America and is knowingly sitting in the White House when he knows he is ineligible for the position. This was nothing less than a coup, and all those who helped with this coup need to be held to strict account.

progressoverpeace on March 9, 2009 at 2:14 PM

I’ll take a pass on the RW spin on FDR and stay with the history books. I will stay the course with the history books on Hoover too.

I am sick and tired of reading about this bush depression and pray it ends soon.

buyavowel on March 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Translation: “No, I did not read any of what baggie posted”.

This particular Leftist seems to be enamored of what historians write. I would refer her to the July 4, 1999 column in the Boston Globe by historian Richard Goodwin. He’s a lifelong Democrat, and was a former aide and speech writer for John F. Kennedy. Married to noted plagiarist fellow historian Doris Kearns, who’s a terrific historian when it comes to baseball, but that’s about all.

Anyway, Dick examined the soon-to-be-completed tenure of pResident Bill Clinton, a man for whom he had voted twice. He examined well over 20 different aspects of what Clinton had “accomplished”.

He concluded that Clinton’s Presidency was already a failure, a year and a half before it ended. Goodwin looked at the statistics and correctly concluded that Clinton inherited an economy that had been in recovery 18 months before he was elected, so he couldn’t take any credit for that.

He also concluded that Clinton’s “diplomatic efforts” were more or less a total failure, in Goodwin’s estimation. Clinton began his pResidency by cutting and running from Somalia, and then refused to take seriously the growing threat of Islamic terrorism. The only “accomplishment” diplomatically Goodwin found was the handshake between Arafat and Begin in the Rose Garden, and we all know how that ended.

In addition, Goodwin also concluded that Clinton was a failure as far as public health care, and public education. About the only nice thing Goodwin could say about his man was that he had been dragged kicking and screaming by the evil Rethuglicans into signing the welfare reform package.

I’m sure our simple Marxist friend here will be afraid to read the truth about his hero as told by one of his fellow travelers, but anyone who is interested can purchase Goodwin’s article on the Boston Globe website. It’s fascinating reading.

Del Dolemonte on March 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Fail depends on what the subject is. In the case of Obama I sure want his policies to not make it through congress. If they do failure is inevitable.

duff65 on March 9, 2009 at 2:41 PM

This is interesting because it is 180 out from where I DON’T want Obama to fail:

Defense – he simply must not fail on defense.

Economic Policy? You bet I want his plan to fail.

Otis B on March 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Look at the DOW instead of the Sky Falling narrative we had during the Bush Administration we have The Floor falling Out From Underneath Obama, during his term.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Maybe you hade “no skin” in the game, I did and still do…

Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM

I got skin in it too – my own and my son’s.

Otis B on March 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Fail depends on what the subject is. In the case of Obama I sure want his policies to not make it through congress. If they do failure is inevitable.

duff65 on March 9, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Exactly and it’s a childish question in any sense.

What difference does it make whether or not we want the policies that we know by experience, are bad idea, to fail or not?

Look, I can express hope that my lousy baseball team, the Pittsburgh Pirates will win the World Series this year.

Hoping and being positive isn’t really going to help them though, is it? When they are a sucky team with very few decent players? Like the Obama Administration?

NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM

By the way, here’s a money quote from Goodwin’s 1999 article, which is surprisingly prescient.

Perhaps the most notable characteristic of the Clinton administration has been the belief that to talk about a problem is to deal with it or, at least, to persuade others that you are dealing with it. Thus, we have been treated to passionate discussions of race or education unaccompanied by any substantial measures, almost as if to name a problem were to solve it.

Sounds like March 2009, doesn’t it?

Oh, and here’s the link to Goodwin’s 1999 article, as well as a link to a piece he had done earlier the same year about the legacy of another President he worked for, Lyndon Johnson.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html

http://nl.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html

Del Dolemonte on March 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Why, by some of the comments here, if I didn’t know better, I would think some of the people here think libruls are hypocrits. But, we all know better………….right?

oakpack on March 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM

getanidea

Fits and starts, doncha know?

swede7 on March 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM

In order for The Obama’s statement to make sense, the market would have to be going up and down, not just down everyday, with the occasional slight bounce.

jeffn21 on March 9, 2009 at 3:21 PM

No but the Dow is down again.

Doom and gloomers.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I hope you followed your leaders advice early last week and bought as much stock as you cold afford…and more.
If you really believed in him, if he really had 56% of the people solidly behind him. They would have heeded his advice and bought stock.
He said it was just some “normal ups and downs”, “fits and starts”…did you buy as much stock as possible last week?

right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 3:43 PM

It is not a matter of “if”, it will fail.
You can’t tax and spend your way out of a recession…you can only work and manufacture your way out.
The only way you put people back to work, so they can buy goods, is to allow business to thrive.
No body out of a job, hires people to work…and no bankrupt company hires people…so far the only area growing is the federal budget.

right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 3:47 PM

If you really believed in him, if he really had 56% of the people solidly behind him. They would have heeded his advice and bought stock.

Great point.

How about the big money behind Hopey here, start making big stock buys?

After all, if they believe in him, then they have nothing to lose. The stock market will be soaring soon.

NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM

The U.S. economy is a huge and complex system, but it can be broadly divided into two layers. The upper layer is composed of average citizens, small businesses, and the industries they interact with on a daily basis. This upper layer is strongly influenced by popular culture, scuttlebut, and the mainstream media. If the economy’s essentials are sound, but the media tells them the economy is sour, they’ll tell pollsters they think the economy is bad… and their sector of the economy will become noticeably worse very quickly, as they stop spending money, or small businesses scale back their payroll.

During the first six Bush years, despite remarkable statistics for economic growth and employment, the upper layer of the economy consistently behaved as if they were trembling on the edge of a recession, because the media told them to believe that. The Bush economy, or “The Greatest Story Never Told” as Larry Kudlow dubbed it, absorbed the devastating economic damage of 9/11 and kept on chugging because the “deeper” level of the economy – large investors, industry, national corporations – saw future conditions that were favorable to growth, and were constantly improving.

The deeper layer of the economy is not much influenced by mainstream media reports or pop culture – in fact, the companies that produce media and pop culture products are themselves located within the deeper layer. Despite all the Hollywood caterwauling about Bush, you didn’t see a reduction in hundred-million-dollar summer blockbuster film productions during his term – quite the reverse. The deeper layer looks *ahead*, and has access to extremely detailed information and analysis about future economic conditions. It’s an ocean liner with long-range radar, turning very slowly, but moving with irresistable force and considerable foresight.

The most alarming thing about the current situation is that the upper layer of the economy is nervous, but trying to remain somewhat hopeful, and is making a heroic effort to give Obama what it sees as a “fair chance to succeed.” The deeper layer of the economy has already rendered its judgement on Obama, and it’s behaving as if that long-range radar just picked up a massive iceberg on the horizon. Bad economic news is bubbling up to the surface, instead of being manufactured on the surface and doing only superficial damage. The average consumer thinks about today, tomorrow, and next month; the big economic fish swimming in deep water think about next quarter and next year. This is the first time I can remember so much quiet desperation taking hold in the deeper layer of the economy.

Doctor Zero on March 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Trying to follow this thread and the discussion over the numbers and from the updates it looks like Ed thought both polls matched up with 51% of Dems wanting Bush failure but that wasn’t the case? One poll seems to cover Dems wanting Bush’s overall plan to fail-51% aand the other poll suggests that 34% of Dems wanted the Iraq surge to fail and another 15 % not decided if they wanted the surge to fail or succeed. I don’t mind that Dems wanted the overall plan to fail-that is politics, but to want the surge to fail or not know if you want the surge to fail and failure means more troops dying is just cold.

journeyintothewhirlwind on March 9, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Excellent topic EM…I hope Rush Limbaugh mentions it…he was unfairly maligned for wanting the exact same thing (failure in his policies) for Obama that Dems wanted to see for Bush.

I will never, ever understand why half of the country wants America to lose in any war. In my book they are traitors, regardless of what the polls say. Seriously Conservatives/Republicans must get their act together and save America before the Dems destroy it with their insanity.

thinkagain on March 9, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Bush 1 recession 3300

Bush 2 depression ?

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM

God! The really let you off the short bus and out of the home to access the internet? How’d you sneak past Nurse Rachett?

What is your point in quote the GHW Bush Dow number in isolation? You can’t possibly have one. Here, let me help you:

In the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford/Carter years the Dow grew a measly 40%. That’s 40% in a 20 year span. From about 600 points in 1960, to a measly 850 in 1980.

At Reagan’s inauguration in 1981 the Dow sat at 950. In just 4 years it grew 26% to 1200. (I know reading comprehension is difficult for you, so let me help: 20% growth in 20 years, vs. 26% growth in FOUR years. But wait! Reagan’s not done yet. It grew 83% in another 4 years. When GHW Bush was inagurated, the Dow was at 2200.

You are correct that when Bush handed the reighs over to Clinton the Dow as at 3330. But–and stick with me here, because I know math is hard—but in the 4 years GHW Bush was in office the Dow grew by 50%.

So, what GHW Bush recession are you referring to? And please be specific with actual numbers/data.

But, let’s not stop there. Clinton had 4 years of 96% Dow growth, followed by 4 years of 70% growth.

Now, I’m sure this will make you want to throw up, but in Bush’s first 4 years (remember, 9/11 happened during that time), the Dow grew by 70%. Now, in the interest of accuracy, there was a 21% decline in the Dow performance during Bush’s second term. But, let’s keep in mind, that’s over a 4 year period.

But of course Barry is not about to be outdone by Bush, so what does he do? From election day to today Barry’s Dow has had an unprecedented drop for any new President of 28%!!! Hell, Bush couldn’t even do that in FOUR years, despite trying, according to you.

Now, there are about 20,000 other things to use to measure the performance of the economy, but you were the one fixated on the DJIA, so I used that as a basis for the argument.

So, what was your point about GWH Bush and the Dow being at 3300 when he left office? I’m not getting it.

Fed45 on March 9, 2009 at 4:53 PM

If you stop with the doom and gloom the market will go up.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 10:58 AM

No, if people have an idea that people are in charge who know what the hell they’re doing, the markets will go up.

ddrintn on March 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Can you at least wait one hundred days before blaming the President for the bush depression?

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Ummmm..thinking…thinking….um….NO!

How long did you all wait when Bush took office?

Fed45 on March 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Can you at least wait one hundred days before blaming the President for the bush depression?

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM

And what are you going to say after 100 days and the economy hasn’t significantly improved. Wait for 150 days? After that wait for 200 days? I think you will be saying exactly the same after Obamas 4 year term is over. i.e. it’s all Bushs fault and Obama needs another term to fix it.

Liberals have no sense of accountability never taking responsibility for their actions never admitting when they are wrong.

docdave on March 9, 2009 at 5:09 PM

So, what GHW Bush recession are you referring to? And please be specific with actual numbers/data.

Fed45 on March 9, 2009 at 4:53 PM

buyavowel is referring to the Bush 1 recession that the Fed said ended in March of 1991, 18 months before the media conned less than 50% of America into voting for the guy from Arkansas.

From the NY Fishwrap, February 2000:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E2D9163EF934A35751C0A9669C8B63&scp=3&sq=editorial+1991+economic+recovery+&st=nyt

I changed one word that the NYT “editors” got wrong:

Though unrecognized unreported at the time, the current recovery began in March 1991, long before Bill Clinton defeated President George Bush on the assertion that he did not know how to manage the economy.

Del Dolemonte on March 9, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Nevermind that this was 6 years, and not 7 weeks, into Bush’s disastrous term.LOL.
Constant Parrhesia on March 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM

And not coincidentally the Democrats took control of Congress 6 years into Bush’s presidency. So what’s your point?

Patrick S on March 9, 2009 at 5:39 PM

How long did you all wait when Bush took office?

Fed45 on March 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Actuakky, they didn’t even wait until he had been inaugurated.

On January 10, 2001, a group of newspapers, all but one of which had endorsed Bush’s opponent, announced in essence that they didn’t believe Bush won the vote in Florida. They formed a consortium to count the ballots themselves, and were happily joined by the Bush-hating al-AP and CLinton News Network. Here’s their press release.

http://www2.norc.org/fl/press.asp

Even before the release of their research, which concluded that Gore would still have lost Florida, the WaPo and NY Fishwrap were accused by the tolerant Left of “suprressing” the results:

excerpt

the Times and its counterparts in the consortium have decided to conceal from the American people facts damaging to the Bush administration’s claims to political legitimacy. They are doing so for the express purpose of suppressing dissent and bolstering the president as he prepares to take the American people into war and makes sweeping attacks on their civil liberties.

Of course, the real reason the report release was delayed was because of another thing in the news at the time-namely the mass-murder of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians in New York, Virginia and Pennyslvania.

Del Dolemonte on March 9, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Can you at least wait one hundred days before blaming the President for the bush depression?

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM

First off, it isn’t a depression (yet) that will only come if the filthy liar in the White House continues to ignore the situtation as he has to this point.

The filthy liar could have come into office and said stuff that would reassure the market. Instead, he bankrupted future generations, punished success, and talked the market down. He gets no honeymoon when he is so clearly unfit for office and the challenges of being the leader. The bastard couldn’t even manage a ceremonial state visit without f**king it up so badly one of our biggest allies is insulted.

highhopes on March 9, 2009 at 5:54 PM

It is not a matter of “if”, it will fail.
You can’t tax and spend your way out of a recession…you can only work and manufacture your way out.
The only way you put people back to work, so they can buy goods, is to allow business to thrive.
No body out of a job, hires people to work…and no bankrupt company hires people…so far the only area growing is the federal budgetgovernment.

right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 3:47 PM

FIFY

And please, everybody, try to act surprised when they admit that this was their goal all along, it will make the edits for the cameras much easier on the propaganda machine.

TASS71 on March 9, 2009 at 6:04 PM

I remember both of these polls. No doubt the Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to all of this. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention the nastiness of the last 8 years can not realistically deny that.

However, the Democrats justify their remarks by saying that they wanted Bushitler to fail to save America..whereas Rush and other Republicans want Obama to fail so that Americans will suffer.

Morons.

Terrye on March 9, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Interesting that 91% who took that poll said taxpayers shouldn’t bail out those homeowners who over extended themselves. I know it’s not a scientific poll, but still, it’s interesting that it was that big a margin.

ladyingray on March 9, 2009 at 7:56 PM

I agree with your take on what constitutes treason, Ed. There’s a reason it’s the only capital crime defined in the US Constitution. But I do think that the Founders missed a trick when defining it – there’d be much less frivolous usage of the term, if those who made such accusations faced the same penalty if the charge was tried and the originally-accused was acquitted.

Blacksmith on March 10, 2009 at 12:01 AM

Where’s the birth certificate, Bairy? Merely present a single document & it’s over. A. Single. Document. Above your pay grade? What of transparency? Just words?

BHO Jonestown on March 10, 2009 at 2:21 AM