Revealed: Who’s responsible for the Bush “Miss Me Yet?” billboard

posted at 9:16 pm on February 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

No, it’s not “fatcat bankers” or “teabaggers” or critics of Obama’s terror policy or whoever today’s enemy du jour is. Surprise:

Mary Teske, the general manager of Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising reports, “The Bush Miss Me Yet? billboard was paid for by a group of small business owners who feel like Washington is against them. They wish to remain anonymous. They thought it was a fun way of getting out their message.”

Various people have stepped forward around the country to claim credit — the latest was a gentleman in upstate New York from what I can tell in his e-mail. But, it’s all local, folks.

I wouldn’t miss not having The One as president, but that doesn’t quite extend to missing Dubya. And no, that’s not because I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass. Let me quote the boss at length:

President Bush put America on the proper war footing after 9/11 and deserves much credit for doing so, but he also:

1) joined with open-borders progressives McCain and Kennedy to try to force shamnesty down our throats;

2) massively expanded the federal role in education;

3) championed the Medicare prescription drug entitlement using phony math;

4) kowtowed to the jihadi-enabling Saudis;

5) stocked DHS with incompetents and cronies;

6) pushed Hillarycare for housing;

7) enabled turncoat Arlen Specter;

8. nominated crony Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court;

9) pre-socialized the economy for Obama by embracing TARP, the auto bailouts, the AIG bailout, and in his own words…

Follow the link for the full quote alluded to in number nine. Needless to say, mismanaging Iraq for the first three and a half years of the war also deserves a prominent place on the list. I think we’re going to have to poll this one.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Good thing these peole wish to remain anonymous. Because you can bet that MSNBC’s Supreme Insane Asylum Inmate Keith Olbermann would make each and every one of them his “Worst Person In The World” for the entire week.

pilamaye on February 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM

And btw, if you are going to go after Bush for having the temerity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court without getting the permission of folks like Malkin and Frum up front, it might be a good idea to learn how to spell the woman’s name. It is Miers, not Myers…a small thing, but then again it seems that nit picking is the rule of the day.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 8:02 AM

Heh. Good comment.

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Wasn’t this post already up in the Green Room way before this post?

Keemo on February 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Wasn’t this post already up in the Green Room way before this post?

Keemo on February 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Routine HA protocol to post the same story up to four times total.

daesleeper on February 10, 2010 at 9:42 AM

I think it’s only fair that someone do a column listing 10 things they DO miss about GW. He genuinely cared about his country and understood the grave nature of terrorism, and he freed Iraq from the hands of a ruthless dictator and tried to promote democracy around the world. People don’t appreciate that now, but they will one day. He was a man of character and compassion. He wasn’t thin skinned, in fact, he could have cared less what the media said about him, and they said plenty. Maybe he went too far with his educational goals, or his amnesty plan, but his intentions were good. Most of all he didn’t strike me as a an elite narcissist who didn’t listen to the American people.

scalleywag on February 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

scalleywag on February 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Good idea.

1. Bush never pretended to be anything he was not.

2. Bush risked personal popularity to achieve victory in Iraq, so that our men and women would not have died in vain.

3. Bush was prolife, even when it meant failing to support initiatives such as increased federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

4. Bush nominated two conservatives for the Supreme Court, Roberts and Alito and even when the Court disagreed with him, he did not humiliate its members in a State of the Union Address.

5. Bush created Health Savings Accounts and Medicare Advantage and whether or not people want to admit it, he kept the Democrats from enacting a far more costly and intrusive drug program.

6. Bush attempted social security reform and while he did not get the support he needed and deserved for the effort, he did not pretend there was not a program. And today some of the elements of that reform can be found in Paul Ryan’s Roadmap.

7. Bush kept this country safe after 9/11. The fact that there were no successful attacks during the remainder of his presidency was no accident.

8. And whether or not people want to admit it, Bush put more resources on the southern border. Needless to say it is not enough to satisfy some people, but then nothing will.

9. Bush’s tax cuts lead to economic growth and low unemployment for most of his tenure.

10. In 2004, the deficit was over $400 billion, in 2006 it was $162 billion..a downward trajectory that was reversed when the Democrats took office.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM

You still here claiming that Malkin said that if Bush hadn’t pushed TARP Obama then wouldn’t have pushed his current plans?

You know, you should really apologize to her for twisting what she said.

MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Both Bush and Obama are figureheads with the same policy on the most important matters.

The Dean on February 10, 2010 at 7:42 AM

No, they are not.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 7:47 AM

44 is continuing just about every (if not every one) of 43′s policies.

The Dean on February 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM

It’s amazing how the RINO hating crowd at HotAir sure does love themselves some of that RINO Bush.

Of course, compared to Obama, Bush is the epitome of the hard right.

uknowmorethanme on February 10, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Is there any equity in bashing Bush, oddly enough – the same criticism given to every left pundit and MSM outlet?

Hindsight is not only 20/20 – but a fools game of subjective/objective wrangling.

From the moment Obama took office – I emplored any one with sense to drop the “what would have happened to Bush if he….” fill in the blank.

Is there some sort of “cred” somewhere, in certain circles?

Do you think any Dem or liberal will agree with these sentiments and do the same to Obama? Or do you think they will use it to avoid Obama’s failures TODAY, while beating you over the head with an agreed “what Bush did wrong, so we can keep this it’s fault meme” alive?

So lets recap – anonymous donors created a “Miss Bush” billboard, of which the dialogue is now on what Bush didn’t do right…

Sometimes a billboard is just a billboard.

Odie1941 on February 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM

8. And whether or not people want to admit it, Bush put more resources on the southern border. Needless to say it is not enough to satisfy some people, but then nothing will.

What’s with the stupid lie? You sound like a teenager who didn’t mow the lawn– But I worked so haaaard! Are 12 million illegal aliens still here? What’s the point of bragging about all the paperwork that’s being done instead of sweeps of Home Depot’s parking lot?

Chris_Balsz on February 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Both Bush and Obama are figureheads with the same policy on the most important matters.

The Dean on February 10, 2010 at 7:42 AM

The sad thing is Obama won’t even try to stop the worst of GW’s follies, because he’s too chicken to have the buck stop with him for anything serious. ‘Progressive’ my foot!

Dark-Star on February 10, 2010 at 11:02 AM

AP, you forgot to list one of the more important Bush screw ups. He allowed Rummy to dither around with half baked ideas in the war.

He dithered before going in and he dithered afterward.If he had acted swiftly and decisively, our forces would have prevented his wmd material from leaving the country and the dems would not have been able to scream QUAGMIRE and “This war is lost.”

Instinctively people know that if you’re gonna get into a fight, you must fight hard and fight to win. And you don’t wait for permission from the UN. You don’t sit on your ass for three months to allow your enemy to prepare.

dogsoldier on February 10, 2010 at 11:07 AM

I miss Ronald Reagan.

rbj on February 10, 2010 at 11:10 AM

AP, you quote Michelle\’s argument against Bush.Fine. Gore, Kerry, Edwards. Which is your preference over Bush?In a field of cowpatties, we at least picked one that had lost most of it\’s smell.

NavyspyII on February 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM

AP, you quote Michelle\’s argument against Bush.Fine. Gore, Kerry, Edwards. Which is your preference over Bush?In a field of cowpatties, we at least picked one that had lost most of it\’s smell.

NavyspyII on February 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM

That doesn’t mean you have to miss sh!t.

Esthier on February 10, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Both Bush and Obama are figureheads with the same policy on the most important matters.

The Dean on February 10, 2010 at 7:42 AM

B.S. Anybody who says there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between this administration and the last isn’t worth listening too. GWB would not have pursued healthcare reform for the last year. GWB would not have opted to give KSM a civilian trial. GWB would not have promised to close Gitmo or allowed the Christmas Day bomber to be mirandized after a grueling 50 minute chat. Just in national security issues your statement is absurd but it holds true no matter what area of this failed administration you look at.

highhopes on February 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Even during Bush I knew those that harkened back to Reagan (who was indeed a Great President) in order to contrast the former unfavorably with the latter would have bashed RR during his presidency had the blogosphere existed.

In addition, not only was GWB imperfect as is anyone and those imperfections magnified by critics beyond all reason, he was subjected to attacks and vile smears that made the ones lobbed at Reagan (as some of us DO remember—really remember, not some gauzy reconstructed memory or assessments based on video clips and reading material) look like the highest praise.

KittyLowrey on February 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM

you need a fourth option:

Just like pulling their chain.

Our society is not dependent on one man. GWB finished his service we can now move on to choose from the millions of Americans who are more qualified than The One.

sjramos on February 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM

I wouldn’t miss not having The One as president, but that doesn’t quite extend to missing Dubya. And no, that’s not because I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass.

C’mon, you are and you love it!

donh525 on February 10, 2010 at 11:43 AM

I certainly remember…but what are you getting at? What of merit did Bush actually do? What is there to remember him for? Treading water?

ernesto on February 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM

I’ll take a swing at this one, in case your actually back on this thread when (or after) I write it.

1. Bush made few election promises, and kept them.
A. Massive across the board tax cut – done.
B. Conservative judges – done.
C. Work to improve education – done.
(Here, it is worth noting, he promised, and delivered a bi-partisan effort, working directly with Ted Kenedy on NCLB.)
and, he was vilified by his democratic opponents for it.

In addition, once confronted with the attack on us by stateless jihadist muslims, he never wavered from his belief that we were at war with them.

No polls to see where to go on vacation.
No kicking the can down the road.

With George W. Bush, you always knew what you were getting, and you got it every time.

Not that you had to like, or lionize, every part; or agree with every policy.

But he was there; unswerving, loyal, and constant.

What’s not to miss?

massrighty on February 10, 2010 at 12:01 PM

B.S. Anybody who says there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between this administration and the last isn’t worth listening too. GWB would not have pursued healthcare reform for the last year. GWB would not have opted to give KSM a civilian trial. GWB would not have promised to close Gitmo or allowed the Christmas Day bomber to be mirandized after a grueling 50 minute chat. Just in national security issues your statement is absurd but it holds true no matter what area of this failed administration you look at.

highhopes on February 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Maybe there’s a nickel’s worth of difference. Bush expanded Medicare, started the bailouts, started the stimulus, expanded wars, expanded torture. Obama wants to expand healthcare, expand the bailouts, continue the stimulus, expand the wars, and expand torture. Maybe there’s about 2% difference between Bush/Obama.

The Dean on February 10, 2010 at 12:08 PM

wouldn’t miss not having The One as president, but that doesn’t quite extend to missing Dubya. And no, that’s not because I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass.

AP, we don’t really think you are Chamberlain-esque.

MikeA on February 10, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Thank you terrye, scalleywag and massrighty.. I wholeheartedly AGREE…

Plus Bush was not an arrogant SOB that looked down on the reg. folk, especially us in flyover country. Who would you rather sit down and have a beer with… Sure as heck isn’t Obummer.

reshas1 on February 10, 2010 at 12:13 PM

reshas1 on February 10, 2010 at 12:13 PM

I have touted the “beer test” for candidates before (not entirely fair in GW’s case, since he no longer drinks, but the principal obtains.)

Reagan vs. Carter?
Reagan vs. Mondale?
GHWB vs. Dukakis?
GHWB vs. Clinton?
Clinton vs. Dole?
GWB vs. Gore?
GWB vs. Kerry?

it’s not a 100% test, but it does seem to favor the winners, and it tends to show us who is the more connected candidate.

There’s also the closely related, “if you could have dinner with anyone from history” test.

My pick? FDR – I want to find out how much he actually believed in the policies he was putting forth, and how much of it was holding onto power.

massrighty on February 10, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Good idea.

1. Bush never pretended to be anything he was not.

2. Bush risked personal popularity to achieve victory in Iraq, so that our men and women would not have died in vain.

3. Bush was prolife, even when it meant failing to support initiatives such as increased federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

4. Bush nominated two conservatives for the Supreme Court, Roberts and Alito and even when the Court disagreed with him, he did not humiliate its members in a State of the Union Address.

5. Bush created Health Savings Accounts and Medicare Advantage and whether or not people want to admit it, he kept the Democrats from enacting a far more costly and intrusive drug program.

6. Bush attempted social security reform and while he did not get the support he needed and deserved for the effort, he did not pretend there was not a program. And today some of the elements of that reform can be found in Paul Ryan’s Roadmap.

7. Bush kept this country safe after 9/11. The fact that there were no successful attacks during the remainder of his presidency was no accident.

8. And whether or not people want to admit it, Bush put more resources on the southern border. Needless to say it is not enough to satisfy some people, but then nothing will.

9. Bush’s tax cuts lead to economic growth and low unemployment for most of his tenure.

10. In 2004, the deficit was over $400 billion, in 2006 it was $162 billion..a downward trajectory that was reversed when the Democrats took office.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM

This bears repeating. Thank you, dear.

I’m sick to death of Malkin’s poisonous hatred of Bush.

Flame away.

Mommynator on February 10, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Oh, and Ms. Malkin’s hatred of Bush also borders on the irrational, surpassed only by the leftist crazies.

Mommynator on February 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM

GWB finished his service we can now move on to choose from the millions of Americans who are more qualified than The One.

sjramos on February 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM

This billboard is another way of saying “Are you willing to give him any credit, yet?” after the years of denying him the dignity and credit he deserved and refusing to serve rational criticism in the respectful manner he had earned.

Clearly there’s a sizable contingent who aren’t and sadly, may never do so. They’re on the wrong side of history, of that I have zero doubt.

KittyLowrey on February 10, 2010 at 12:34 PM

I wouldn’t miss not having The One as president, but that doesn’t quite extend to missing Dubya. And no, that’s not because I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass.

I never called you Chamberlain-esque.

SKYFOX on February 10, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Oh, and Ms. Malkin’s hatred of Bush also borders on the irrational, surpassed only by the leftist crazies.

Mommynator on February 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM

I don’t think Michelle Malkin hates Bush but I do think the tombstone picture is a bit much.

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM

I’ve said many times that Bush and Obama were on parallel tracks heading to the same destination. Bush’s was a slow freight train, Obama’s is the express.

SKYFOX on February 10, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Oh, and Ms. Malkin’s hatred of Bush also borders on the irrational, surpassed only by the leftist crazies.

Mommynator on February 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM

LOL. All she did was produce a numbered list of George W. Bush’s worst policies followed by a quote from George W. Bush himself.

Was it disrespectful to superimose the man’s words on a tombstone followed by “RIP”? Yes, a little. But it’s not evidence of hatred let alone anything akin to crazy leftist hatred.

The fact is that if people did not give President Bush their heart and soul, and worship him as an elected monarch, all of his worst policies could have been halted in their tracks. The Miers nomination and Amnesty were halted because people like Ms. Malkin were not blinded by irrational love.

aengus on February 10, 2010 at 12:56 PM

And no, that’s not because I’m a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass.

No you’re not. You are Charles Johnson’s sock puppet. Not much of a difference but this is the nit-pick thread.

Drill_Thrawl on February 10, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Surely, the sentiment expressed was not a literal one, but instead is a broader expression of how some feel given the national state of affairs, particularly in light of the persistently disturbing political and judgmental inclinations of the current occupant of the White House. In other words, constitutionally, as well as for other reasons, it could not possibly be a literal expression.

It’s a gag . . . and a good one at that.

So subjecting it to close scrutiny by way of highlighting a list of perceived Bush shortcomings over the course of 8 years, seems a little petty under the circumstances.

Any of us could easily triple the size of that list with serious examples of shortcomings or blunders regarding the current POTUS.

And, I might add, most of us could do that without having to read them off a teleprompter, write reminder notes on our hands, pull out a set of three-by-five cards, or even shuffle through the Barack Obama Deck ‘O Dopey Moves (whenever it comes out)!

There is just too much material! The sign is funny I wish I’d thought of it first. Of course, putting a bumper sticker like that on your vehicle would be an invitation to have your car keyed, so I’d think twice before doing that.

Trochilus on February 10, 2010 at 1:41 PM

“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.”
- Abraham Lincoln

“Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” – Ronaldus Magnus

This expresses my idea of being a Republican. Whoever differs from this, to the extend of the difference, is no Republican.

Knott Buyinit on February 10, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Agree with Ed and the Boss. +1

james23 on February 10, 2010 at 2:17 PM

I miss Dick Cheney.

ace tomato on February 10, 2010 at 2:18 PM

10. In 2004, the deficit was over $400 billion, in 2006 it was $162 billion..a downward trajectory that was reversed when the Democrats took office.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM
——–
ha ha cherry pick some more

National debt in 2000: 5,628.7
National debt in 2008: 9,985.8

Clinton handed Bush a surplus (hmm wait – that sounds like a downward trajectory)
Are you also applauding Bush for making that go bye bye – sorry, in an upward trajectory- in less than a year?

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Clinton handed Bush a surplus (hmm wait – that sounds like a downward trajectory)
Are you also applauding Bush for making that go bye bye – sorry, in an upward trajectory- in less than a year?

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Clinton didn’t have the War on Terror to deal with. Did you really expect us to sustain a surplus during a time of war?
That is ridiculous.

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM

So subjecting it to close scrutiny by way of highlighting a list of perceived Bush shortcomings over the course of 8 years, seems a little petty under the circumstances.

I would say its highly relevant given that the uncritical love conservatives felt for Bush is identical to the uncritical love conservatives now feel for Palin. You can’t even admit that Bush had any shortcomings.

aengus on February 10, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Clinton handed Bush a surplus (hmm wait – that sounds like a downward trajectory)
Are you also applauding Bush for making that go bye bye – sorry, in an upward trajectory- in less than a year?

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 3:39 PM

No, he did not hand Bush a surplus. The truth is the dot com crash at the end of Clinton’s term cut federal revenues and thus the surplus went away…and then of course came 9/11.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Clinton didn’t have the War on Terror to deal with. Did you really expect us to sustain a surplus during a time of war?
That is ridiculous.

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM
——
Obama has the war on terror to deal with. Do you really expect your country to run a surplus in a time of war?

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I would say its highly relevant given that the uncritical love conservatives felt for Bush is identical to the uncritical love conservatives now feel for Palin. You can’t even admit that Bush had any shortcomings.

aengus on February 10, 2010 at 3:57 PM

It is petty and it has nothing to do with uncritical love. I find some of these socalled shortcomings, ridiculous…such as enabling Specter, what does that even mean? Specter was a Senator for years and years before Bush was ever president..and then the kowtowing to the Saudis remark…what does that mean as well? Should there have been sanctions? War? Freezing of assets or would just plain snottiness on the part of Bush been enough? and the hillary care for housing remark makes no sense to me at all. Followed by the presocializing fantasy. I mean come on, if you want to go after Bush at least pick real stuff to complain about and not some strange hybrid complaints that have no real meaning.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 4:02 PM

No, he did not hand Bush a surplus. The truth is the dot com crash at the end of Clinton’s term cut federal revenues and thus the surplus went away…and then of course came 9/11.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 3:58 PM
——
ha ha ha don’t let reality get in your way.

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Obama has the war on terror to deal with. Do you really expect your country to run a surplus in a time of war?

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Actually no I don’t. I thought it was laughable when John McCain said he would balance the budget if elected. No way would that have happened.

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Obama has the war on terror to deal with. Do you really expect your country to run a surplus in a time of war?

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I don’t think that the Obamacare nonsense and the $880 billion dollar stimulus have anything to do with war. The truth is Obama spent more money in his first year than Bush did in the War on Terror in two terms.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 4:04 PM

10. In 2004, the deficit was over $400 billion, in 2006 it was $162 billion..a downward trajectory that was reversed when the Democrats took office.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM
——–
ha ha cherry pick some more

National debt in 2000: 5,628.7
National debt in 2008: 9,985.8

ha ha yourself Canuck man, Obama has already doubled it.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Oh, and Ms. Malkin’s hatred of Bush also borders on the irrational, surpassed only by the leftist crazies.

Mommynator on February 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM

LOL. All she did was produce a numbered list of George W. Bush’s worst policies followed by a quote from George W. Bush himself.

Really? I don’t think so. I found some of the socalled policies she listed to be downright weird. In fact, since when is something like enabling Specter a policy?

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Even during Bush I knew those that harkened back to Reagan (who was indeed a Great President) in order to contrast the former unfavorably with the latter would have bashed RR during his presidency had the blogosphere existed.

In addition, not only was GWB imperfect as is anyone and those imperfections magnified by critics beyond all reason, he was subjected to attacks and vile smears that made the ones lobbed at Reagan (as some of us DO remember—really remember, not some gauzy reconstructed memory or assessments based on video clips and reading material) look like the highest praise.

KittyLowrey on February 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM

That is very true. No doubt, people on the internet would be calling Reagan Ronaldo today after he signed amnesty. They would have called him a coward for his failure to shut down the Dept of Education. And when he had to make the decision as to whether or not to raise social security taxes or see the system collapse…no doubt cyber libertarians would have assaulted him for continued support of the Ponzi scheme..I can not even imagine what Iran/Contra would have turned into on the internet.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Really? I don’t think so. I found some of the socalled policies she listed to be downright weird. In fact, since when is something like enabling Specter a policy?

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Can you or anybody else explain to me the reasons why people got in an uproar over Harriet Miers. I was in grad school at the time was busy with other stuff and didn’t follow that story too closely. I now that people called her unqualified.

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Can you or anybody else explain to me the reasons why people got in an uproar over Harriet Miers. I was in grad school at the time was busy with other stuff and didn’t follow that story too closely. I now that people called her unqualified.

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM

It was seen as cronyism. She was an unqualified nobody who Bush ws going to put on the Court because she was his friend.

aengus on February 10, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Really? I don’t think so. I found some of the socalled policies she listed to be downright weird. In fact, since when is something like enabling Specter a policy?

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 4:08 PM

No, you’re right, that wasn’t a policy. But it’s not a weird objection: Bush supported an unconservative Republican. But then the RNC does that all the time so it’s arguably a weak objection.

aengus on February 10, 2010 at 4:19 PM

It was seen as cronyism. She was an unqualified nobody who Bush ws going to put on the Court because she was his friend.

aengus on February 10, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Ok I got the unqualified part….but why was she unqualified? Was she dumb or something? Never worked as a judge?

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 4:20 PM

No doubt, people on the internet would be calling Reagan Ronaldo today after he signed amnesty.

Well does anybody call him that now? The illegals problem has ballooned since 1986. If Reagan supported amnesty again in 2006 after his previous amnesty had completely failed to solve the problem he would be deserving of very serious criticism. Those who support amnesty now have the benefit of 20+ years of hindsight that Reagan did not have. They are being willfully obtuse on this issue.

aengus on February 10, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Ok I got the unqualified part….but why was she unqualified? Was she dumb or something? Never worked as a judge?

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 4:20 PM

I don’t recall all the details, as I was only half-following it at the time. National Review probably still have articles in the archives. I remember Kathryn Lopez was particularly adamant against it.

aengus on February 10, 2010 at 4:25 PM

I miss Laura the most.

qestout on February 10, 2010 at 4:25 PM

I don’t recall all the details, as I was only half-following it at the time. National Review probably still have articles in the archives. I remember Kathryn Lopez was particularly adamant against it.

aengus on February 10, 2010 at 4:25 PM

I’ll look for Lopez’s articles on her. Thanks.

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 4:27 PM

You bet your arse I miss George W. Bush. I know what he did wrong and what he did right and at this point, it should be abundantly clear that he was taken down mostly by the Goebbles like Propaganda by many on the LEFT and that it worked. Sad thing was 90% of it was lies and hyperbole with a nice amount of lemming thrown in to make it extra crunchy.

I wasn’t a conservative when he was first elected, so I had no dog in the fight. How the hell did I become one if he was as stupid as they all say?

And the election of Turkmenbama should put to rest the stupid canard of “There is no difference between the Dems and the Republicans”. ZerObama killed that old, stupid saying. We are living the truth now. Elections have consequences.

Gob on February 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM

I miss Laura the most.

qestout on February 10, 2010 at 4:25 PM
——
Yeah, president’s wives are so awesome and relevant.

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Presidents’ wives.
All of them.
Awesome and relevant.

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 4:47 PM

I miss Dana Perino…

highninside on February 10, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 4:47

Ok you don’t have to repear yourself.

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM

repear

repeat

terryannonline on February 10, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Well does anybody call him that now? The illegals problem has ballooned since 1986. If Reagan supported amnesty again in 2006 after his previous amnesty had completely failed to solve the problem he would be deserving of very serious criticism. Those who support amnesty now have the benefit of 20+ years of hindsight that Reagan did not have. They are being willfully obtuse on this issue.

aengus on February 10, 2010 at 4:23 PM

No, they don’t call him that. They treat Reagan like a saint now that he is gone and out of power. They just blame Kennedy. My point is that if the same people had done the same things in the same atmosphere….Reagan would have been treated much more harshly than he was. It was different then, people had more respect for the office.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 7:45 PM

And btw, aengus…why did no one do anything about this problem for all those years? The truth is the US had an open border policy for more than a hundred years and yet today, it is all Bush’s fault, or McCain’s fault. Imagine how much easier it would have been to deal with all this if someone had made a greater effort back then.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Presidents’ wives.
All of them.
Awesome and relevant.

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Dave Rywall on relevance, ladies and gentlemen!

Coming up;
Joe Biden on Gravitas.
Ted Kennedy on safe driving.
Chris Dodd on ethics.

massrighty on February 10, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Let me quote the boss(Michelle Malkin) at length:

President Bush put America on the proper war footing after 9/11 and deserves much credit for doing so, but he also:

1) joined with open-borders progressives McCain and Kennedy to try to force shamnesty down our throats;

2) massively expanded the federal role in education;

3) championed the Medicare prescription drug entitlement using phony math;

4) kowtowed to the jihadi-enabling Saudis;

5) stocked DHS with incompetents and cronies;

6) pushed Hillarycare for housing;

7) enabled turncoat Arlen Specter;

8. nominated crony Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court;

9) pre-socialized the economy for Obama by embracing TARP, the auto bailouts, the AIG bailout, and in his own words…

Malkin’s made a very agreeable list, as to my criticisms of President Bush’s politics, too — though I give him a huge gold star for that intro. item at the top of the list (which I believe many would also do and that’s why Bush was re-elected).

I’m not one to support “the lesser of two evils” philosophy unless there are no options but the evil ones, but, with all those liabilities (list by Malkin, above) President Bush is still by far less a problem to our nation and world after eight years in the White House as Obama has established himself to be in only one short year – so I am aghast as to what will transpire in the next, remaining years of this Obama Monstrosity.

Obama is going about destroying our Constitution. Before anyone guesses that what I just wrote is an exaggeration, look at his goals and closely examine the philosophies and motivations of all of those who he “surrounds himself with”.

Lourdes on February 10, 2010 at 8:22 PM

I’m not one to support “the lesser of two evils” philosophy unless there are no options but the evil ones,

In which case, I resort to my “Higher Power”.

Lourdes on February 10, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Do you really expect your country to run a surplus in a time of war?

Dave Rywall on February 10, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Certainly not a surplus – but if we can’t at least run a neutral budget, we’re going to bankrupt ourselves trying to win a never-ending war, and then we’re really screwed!

War on terror or NO war on terror, no nation can forever run in the red without catastrophe. Not even the US.

Dark-Star on February 10, 2010 at 8:31 PM

6) pushed Hillarycare for housing;

I have no idea what this even means.

I think one reason I defend Bush is that I have never seen a president have to face such unrelenting non stop back stabbing second guessing hysterical, paranoid, over the top crap.

I mentioned earlier that I could not imagine how the Iran/Contra scandal would have played out with internet. But add cable news and know it all pundits to the mix. I just think a lot of people, and that includes people on the right exaggerated Bush’s faults and ignored the good he did. and that says as much about them, as it does about him.

I know I have less respect for MM than I used to.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 9:12 PM

War on terror or NO war on terror, no nation can forever run in the red without catastrophe. Not even the US.

Dark-Star on February 10, 2010 at 8:31 PM

I think that if the deficit was very small it might not be such a big deal, but it is also the huge size of it, the debt to asset ratio that is scary.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Maybe there’s a nickel’s worth of difference. Bush expanded Medicare, started the bailouts, started the stimulus, expanded wars, expanded torture. Obama wants to expand healthcare, expand the bailouts, continue the stimulus, expand the wars, and expand torture. Maybe there’s about 2% difference between Bush/Obama.
The Dean on February 10, 2010 at 12:08 PM

maybe there is a 2% difference between ” the dean” and Eric Robinson

As for Harriet Miers,

It was a brilliant strategy to get what the US needed.

George gave the commies a pound of flesh while allowing them to defign qualifications for the high court

you can’t argue with the result if you have a brain

GWB, selfless and good

Sonosam on February 10, 2010 at 10:26 PM

The fact of the matter is that none of our presidents have been all that great lately. If I’d been the president when 9/11 had gone down there would have been about 500 million fewer muslims several days later. The few remaining Saudi’s and Iranians would be confined to reservations in the absolutely most wretched parts of their respective countries and their oil would be getting pumped by American companies and sold to the chinese for about 250 bucks a barrel. 1.3 billion chinese would be in hock up to their asses to the USA.

Vote for me!!!

trigon on February 10, 2010 at 10:30 PM

And Reagan was close to the Saudis too.

But then again I guess that does not count any more than Reagan signing amnesty, or running a deficit or raising social security taxes matters. I think Reagan was a good man, but no president is going to please everyone, especially the pundits.

Terrye on February 11, 2010 at 7:08 AM

Bush is a good man.
Of course I miss him.

balkanmom2 on February 11, 2010 at 8:40 AM

I think the point of the listmaking is to look forward. We’re not going to tolerate the next Republican President repeating these stupid mistakes on the grounds that he inherited a real mess and anyhow he’s still better than the last guy.

Chris_Balsz on February 11, 2010 at 11:00 AM

And btw, aengus…why did no one do anything about this problem for all those years? The truth is the US had an open border policy for more than a hundred years and yet today, it is all Bush’s fault, or McCain’s fault. Imagine how much easier it would have been to deal with all this if someone had made a greater effort back then.

Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 7:47 PM

I’m afraid you’re simply misinformed on this. The actual truth is that there was a huge illegal immigration problem in the 1950′s which President Eisenhower dealt with very effectively, even utilising mass deportations in one instance. Earlier in the 20th century General Pershing commanded cross-border raids into Mexico to hunt down bandits Pancho Villa and his men under orders from President T. Roosevelt.

The fact is that Reagan was one of the late-twentieth-century Presidents to deal very badly with this issue but nonetheless any reasonable and charitable person can and should give him the benefit of the doubt which he has earned. By contrast Bush/McCain/Kennedy have been unreasonable, obtuse and completely failed to address this issue in a satisfactory way. McBush have even accused their own supporters of racism.

aengus on February 11, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Actually, what I mostly miss is the Republican majority in Congress. The loss of which could reasonably be laid at Bush’s door as well…

Not that the Republicans did much good with their majority in the past decade, but in the Clinton years it was comforting. Maybe I just miss the the non-Dem-majority. Or maybe just Newt.

JackOfClubs on February 11, 2010 at 3:53 PM

The fact is that Reagan was one of the late-twentieth-century Presidents to deal very badly with this issue but nonetheless any reasonable and charitable person can and should give him the benefit of the doubt which he has earned. By contrast Bush/McCain/Kennedy have been unreasonable, obtuse and completely failed to address this issue in a satisfactory way. McBush have even accused their own supporters of racism.

aengus on February 11, 2010 at 1:10 PM

It’s only been recently that the Mexican government has decided to applaud, support and exploit mass emigration of its citizens to the United States for long-term, illegal residence here. In Reagan’s day, illegal immigrants weren’t given absentee ballots and matricula cards by their consulate.

Chris_Balsz on February 11, 2010 at 6:27 PM

I miss Ronald Reagan

Great_Red_Dragon on February 12, 2010 at 3:27 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5