Obama is partisan while pretending to be above it, deeply cryptic and corrupt, ready to break a promise at a moment’s notice, narcissistic, and ready to stick a knife in a political rival’s back whenever it will benefit him. Metaphorically, of course.

On economic matters, Bush shouldn’t really say anything. Increasing spending and decreasing taxes leads to huge deficits…

Krydor on June 18, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Increasing spending leads to huge deficits. Decreasing taxes leads to more revenue.

Liberals never get either point.

Lambchop was hot!

Blake on June 19, 2009 at 1:25 AM

Did you grow up on a farm?

Why expect a verbal fight from Bush. He hid in the White House and said practically nothing during his last term.Jeff from WI on June 19, 2009 at 6:17 AM

Bush said & did a lot during his 2nd term, you just weren’t paying attention!
And I’ll take hiding in the White House any day over announcing a new disastrous federal program EVERY DAY that’s going to cost a mint and/or that violates the morals of 40%+ of us every day and that has to be passed NOW the way Maobama’s been doing.

Except for the wars and national security, I think he was a complete failure. He stood up to Dims on virtually nothing else. It took him almost five years before he vetoed a single thing. He had the power to investigate and prosecute the Dims and the outrageous corruption everywhere and he was pretty much silent with his ‘New Tone’ crap. He set the stage for the assault on this nation by the enemies within – the Dims and the buffoon in the White House! What a waste of 8 years.

Sporty1946 on June 19, 2009 at 7:35 AM

Bush was anything but a complete failure, you ass!
“The wars and national security” are actually his only real job under the Constitution, not prosecuting the opposition party.
The only way he “set the stage” for the assault on this nation by the Left was by making ordinary Americans feel so fat, happy and safe that they thought they could “afford” to elect the African-American empty suit.

And, no, Bush wasn’t responsible for the current economic mess. That was Barney Frank and the other Dumocrats via the CRE.

Not a lamb, more like Lambchop the sock puppet.

glennbo on June 18, 2009 at 10:18 PM

Lambchop was hot!

Exit question: Should Bush, of all people, really be making cracks about the folly of sending terrorists for therapy?

Here’s a thought about that..the tried it and it didn’t work. Maybe he does have some credibility on this issue after all.

redwhiteblue on June 18, 2009 at 11:47 PM

John the Libertarian on June 18, 2009 at 11:21 PM

Thanks for the reply, John. At least I know I’m not alone.

There’s nothing worse than a bunch of whining Republicans.
thebadoutlaw on June 18, 2009 at 10:46 PM

I think there is something worse – a bunch of bitter Democrats systematically destroying The Constitution of The United States of America!

tigerlily on June 18, 2009 at 11:02 PM

I tried this same advice during the campaign. Please let’s lay off the messiah comparison, it’s so offensive. But it didn’t get anywhere.

blatantblue on June 18, 2009 at 9:23 PM

In trying to make a point re: Obama’s over the top egomania, we are using titles that are reserved to Christ alone.

I think we should never profane any title of our Lord, let alone drag it through the mud in relation to Obama’s evil ways. I don’t think it is at all acceptable to use our dear Lord’s titles except in giving honor and worship to the true ONE.

AND what is worse, I am sure Obama LOVES the comparison. It is empowering him in a perverse way.

Let’s stop being too clever by half and just call it like it is. I am convinced Obama has a demon, and probably several, calling his moves. So, I’ll refer to Barack’s demon.

After all, sunlight isn’t only a great antiseptic, it also
is anathema to demons.

So, in referring to the above article, one could say…”lest it offends Barack’s demon…”

The possiblities are endless, e.g., “Barack’s demon took the prez and his wife to a Broadway show on taxpayer $$$.”
Or, “Today, Barack’s demon and the teleprompter conspired to have the prez lie about ____________ ”
(fill in the blank with your choice of hundreds of instances.)

I, for one, will not please Obama, or his demons, by taking any name of our Lord in vain.

proudteadrinker on June 18, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Well…”technically”…the First Daughters named the dog….

I agree with you on the former, but as to the latter, many economists declare that that tax cuts INCREASE tax revenues

This was empirically proven during the Reagan and Bush Presidencies. Only liberals believe raising taxes raises revenues. They are wrong about this – and most other things.

A couple things: They think Reagan and people who support this idea got lucky. We’ll never get anywhere until we convince them it wasn’t luck.

Also, they’re right – in the short term. They could raise everybody’s tax rates to 85% or something tomorrow and revenues would spike dramatically for a fiscal year or so until everyone regrouped, quit their jobs, got laid off, etc. Sure – they’d balance the budget and bring in a ton of money to the goverment, but it wouldn’t last.

Until politicians, pundits, and people who make political television commercials get off their lazy rhetorical/creative/visual/verbal asses and find a way to explain this stuff to an increasingly undereducated nation that has virtually no long-term memory, a disintegrating short-term memory, that has no time to digest information and no attention span to do so with — you can kiss your solid economic theories goodnight because they’ll never be put into practice.

It’s our own damned fault, though, for not engaging in these battles enough. Sure, the media is a big part of the problem, but we need to stop blaming everyone but ourselves and do something productive. There’s nothing worse than a bunch of whining Republicans.

Excuse me while I go take JS S@@@@@@ out for a walk.