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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
So did Reagan. Government was bigger when he left office than it was when he got there, so does that mean he presocialized the economy? The point is blaming Bush for the stuff Obama and Reid and Pelosi did is insane. All of these people have a history of supporting big government and yet the American people put the Democrats in charge.
Terrye on February 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Hmmm. I wonder how many others in your state felt the same way? I guess you’ll never know how many of you kept it blue. What a waste of a vote.
Whippet on February 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Well, let’s see. If gov’t got bigger due to legislation that he signed, then doesn’t that mean he contributed to making gov’t bigger? That is your claim, right?
Now pre-socializing? Define that, will you?
MeatHeadinCA on February 9, 2010 at 11:48 PM
Oh yes. Back then it was cool to think Saddam was a dangerous madman. In fact in the spring of 2000 Zinni said Saddam was our greatest threat.
Terrye on February 9, 2010 at 11:48 PM
I’m not talking about them stopping GWB. I’m talking about the health of the GOP.
It’s like the Dems passing health care reform by themselves (except even more serious than that). They had the votes to do it all by themselves. But changes in our government and our society of that magnitude should have huge bipartisan support, for all types of reasons, both political and practical. If a party does it all by themselves, when things start to go wrong, the people will take it out on someone, and bet your ass the opposition party will be there to stoke their anger.
Well, those reasons are magnified when you are talking about going to war. It’s as serious a thing as a POTUS and Congress can do. Now, the Dems did give him a lot of cover. But support in both Congress and the general population was thin enough that it was clear an extended stay in Iraq would eventually sour both Congress and the public on it, and that there would be a price to pay for that.
JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2010 at 11:49 PM
We’ll never know? Are you joking? They do show the statistics. Don’t worry, Obama won solidly. The only point you COULD have made is if I had not voted at all… Then I would have joined a legion of people that could’ve actually made a difference.
MeatHeadinCA on February 9, 2010 at 11:49 PM
And now you’re asking me who I would have voted for?
Here in Indiana, Obama won with less than 1% margin, just about the same margin that voted for the libertarian Barr. As far as I am concerned they might as well have voted for Obama, same difference.
Terrye on February 9, 2010 at 11:50 PM
I’m aware of this. Is Indiana considered a Solid Blue state? Actually, wasn’t this the first time that Indiana had even gone to a D in quite some time?
MeatHeadinCA on February 9, 2010 at 11:51 PM
The health of the GOP? The GOP wanted Bush to go after Saddam. The base expected him to go after Saddam. No doubt if he had failed to do it, that would be one more thing on Michelle’s list.
Terrye on February 9, 2010 at 11:52 PM
Well you’re the one ctricizing the voters’ choice. As for MM, whether she is an “information povider,” whatever the heck that means, she is still a voter/citizen. So yes she should have found a candidate she liked and campaigned for them, just as we all should. And she is a Conservative pundit so it would have not have been wrong or unusual had she done so. Maybe she might have found a candidate that would have done a better job. It’s very easy to criticize, but much harder to encourage. And all of that applies to all of us, not just MM.
Oh, and what’s with the bold type? LOL
Deanna on February 9, 2010 at 11:52 PM
Just to be clear you’re admitting your a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass?
Iblis on February 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM
So…your argument is that Bush should have went against what he believed to be the right thing to do because the political equation wasn’t ideal?
Wow. Just wow. That’s some profound logic right there.
hillbillyjim on February 9, 2010 at 11:55 PM
Just making the question so it would stick out. You answered my question. I personally don’t hold anything against Michelle Malkin for simply criticizing certain candidates weaknesses. It seems you do simply because she didn’t provide an alternative – and use her influences to boost this candidate.
MeatHeadinCA on February 9, 2010 at 11:55 PM
No, it is not. But then again, Indiana is one of those states that has been known to support RINOs and other such vile creatures. But at least we don’t consistently turn out liberals while at the same time we complain that other people are not sufficiently conservative enough for us.
Terrye on February 9, 2010 at 11:56 PM
Comparing Presidents – The Size of Government
note – the source may be questionable
disillusioned on February 9, 2010 at 11:58 PM
OK, so it’s not a solid blue state… so I suppose it has nothing to say about misrepresented conservatives in Solidly blue states making a statement on the state level by attempting to boost the numbers of a 3rd party candidate.
And yet you complain about that 1% of Bob Barr supporters so apparently “we” isn’t all of the conservatives of IN.
MeatHeadinCA on February 9, 2010 at 11:59 PM
I miss Cheney. Does that count?
Goody2Shoes on February 10, 2010 at 12:00 AM
I think this is true.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:00 AM
No argument at all. And when that limb broke off, the GOP paid the price for his courage.
Since when is the UN a necessary tool for building a coalition? Did we dissolve the Department of State and nobody printed it in the newspapers? Are our professional diplomats so incompetent that they have to cede the ground to the New World Order?
The UN is a bunch of thugs, spies and clowns that conservatives used to spit upon. Apparently now we have conservatives that like the UN because GWB (and his father) worshipped at the Turtle Bay altar.
And that is a sad remark on the state of American conservatism.
Fair enough. I’ve already admitted as much several times now. But too many people here seem willing to ignore the fact that it was our party that incurred the cost of that courage.
JohnGalt23 on February 10, 2010 at 12:00 AM
known to support RINOs and other such vile creatures.
OK, so it’s not a solid blue state… so I suppose it has nothing to say about misrepresented conservatives in Solidly blue states making a statement on the state level by attempting to boost the numbers of a 3rd party candidate.
I complained because the Barr people helped Obama win the electoral votes. That is just a fact. And I am not misrepresenting anyone.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM
I realize why you are complaining; however, that just goes to show you that some Conservatives are willing to vote for principle over party and thus kick out vile RINOs.
BTW, I’m pretty sure Obama won w/o Indiana, but that’s a remark that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with conservatives in solidly blue states voting for a 3rd party.
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:05 AM
See now you got it. Personally,I do find it hypocritical when pundits only criticize and don’t offer alternatives. But then that may be one of the reasons I don’t pay much attention to them. After all it is simply their opinion and interpretation, which in reality is no better than yours or mine. Of course they sometimes do bring research to light, but even then I check it out for myself. On that note, I have to get up early for work. Have a good night.
Deanna on February 10, 2010 at 12:05 AM
Check your facts. The most liberal polling firms had public support extremely high prior to the Iraq invasion. Much higher than dem support, but then that’s usually the case. In cases of national security the public is much smarter than the average lib. And the dems counted on that support eroding and participated in that erosion. Bush did the right thing and the majority of the country knew it at the time.
Whippet on February 10, 2010 at 12:06 AM
I think you should ask MM to define that, she made up the term. I have never quite understood what it is supposed to mean.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:07 AM
And faced with the uber lib that is Obama they know it again.
Whippet on February 10, 2010 at 12:07 AM
You must have a short memory. The coalition that was cobbled together was not under the auspices of the UN. Making the effort was political necessity, was it not?
The UN was cajoled into giving its reluctant imprimatur when they saw the direction the winds were blowing. Bush was going, yea or nay.
This is a silly argument. Y’all can have it. I’m so done.
hillbillyjim on February 10, 2010 at 12:08 AM
This is true. Punditry, is opinion.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:09 AM
Indeed they did. And sometimes a leader has to protect his followers from their own worst instincts, rather than fan the flames of their passions.
I wonder if that is really the case. Had we never gone into Iraq (and spent the political capital associated with it), I believe large parts of his domestic agenda would have passed, maybe even Social Security reform.
Had that happened, I think a lot of the grief some conservatives express about Bush would have long ago been forgotten.
JohnGalt23 on February 10, 2010 at 12:09 AM
I’d assume that it means preparing an economy for the beginning stages of a socialist economy. That said, we weren’t and aren’t a capitalist nation, so call it pre-socialization or pre-communism or whatever, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that gov’t grew along with the number of regulations it imposed.
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:09 AM
Well gee, if they are only voting principle what difference does it make if Obama would have won anyway?
And personally I don’t buy the idea that voting for someone who can not win and helping elect a guy like Obama is something a principled conservative would do. I remember Buckley once said that conservatives should for someone who was not only conservative but electable.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:14 AM
Would a solidly blue state have a Republican Governor? Or, across the spectrum, a newly elected Republican Senator?
disillusioned on February 10, 2010 at 12:14 AM
27% opposition. Do you think there was 27% opposition to WWII or Vietnam?
You and I have different ideas of what constitutes “extremely high” support.
And yet it was the GOP, and not the Dems, that paid the price for that erosion. And if GWB didn’t foresee that possibility, he damned well should have.
JohnGalt23 on February 10, 2010 at 12:15 AM
Government also grows along with the overall population. It has for many years now.
But the idea that if Bush had not agreed to TARP that the Democrats would not have pushed a leftist agenda is silly. In fact, they might have pushed for more.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:17 AM
Well… It might send a message to the state GOP – or at least that might be their intentions. Again, these people weren’t in a solidly blue state, so their vote was more risky.
Well, if you doubt their principles, take it up with them. If they aren’t principled conservatives, then what are they? Saboteurs?
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:18 AM
Do you want me to define solidly blue in the context of a Presidential election, because that should be pretty clear?
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:19 AM
Yes, it is a silly idea. Now who here had that idea?
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:20 AM
Michelle put up a better “Miss Me Yet?” billboard, via photo shop. I heartily agree.
Christian Conservative on February 10, 2010 at 12:23 AM
meathead:
You are missing the point. Voting for some libertarian does not send a message to the GOP. They have rank and file people voting in primaries for that. If you want to send a message to the GOP field electable, conservative candidates who can win and support them.
And a lot of people on the right do not seem all that interested in actually supporting candidates, they would rather make lists criticizing them for all sorts of stuff…some of which is just plain silly.
The Tea Party people are starting to actually support people in primaries, that is how you send a message.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:24 AM
Why don’t you ask Michelle?
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM
Oh so now 27% (25% actually) opposition is as you said ” thin.?” After Vietnam and the way the libs used that war to their advantage politically you will never see support for any war again as high as WWI or WWII. People back then were smart enough to understand the costs of NOT going to war in some cases but now a certain percentage of the population believes the propaganda from the past. And Bush did the right thing regardless of the political cost the Dems caused (since they never see a tragedy, death, war, child, minority, natural disaster, etc, etc, etc they can’t exploit for their own political purposes.) Some things transend politics. the public supported him most of the way even though the elites of the political class did not. Hmm, the dems have even changed the definition of elite…it used to mean something superior, something above others…now it’s just a word that means unintelligent educated fools.
Whippet on February 10, 2010 at 12:30 AM
So going to the UN was a pointless exercise that only strengthened the one-worlders at the expense of US sovereignty after all.
Imagine that.
Exactly what country in the “coalition” (that was, in all truth, the UK and a bunch of negligible contributions) would have bailed on us if we had ignored the UN?
So why genuflect at the Turtle Bay altar in the first place?
JohnGalt23 on February 10, 2010 at 12:30 AM
1) If a group of people voting for someone that isn’t your candidate doesn’t send some sort of message, then you deserve to be an irrelevant party…
2) If a significant number of the outnumbered conservatives banded together, they might actually be able to defy the local money machine and get a candidate that better represents them to at least run in local elections. They can make their voice heard in a national election without causing a loss to the GOP. Isn’t this what the Tea Party movement is trying to do? Hey, they might not succeed, but they might just be able to make a difference – at least on the local level.
Well, it might be silly, but it doesn’t take away the validity of their criticism. It might not be extremely constructive, but an honest debate shouldn’t hurt a healthy party. Again, this criticism might actually highlight serious flaws of the GOP.
Well, that is one way; but that doesn’t mean the other methods (which are similar) aren’t valid either.
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:30 AM
Did Michelle Malkin say that if Bush had not signed onto TARP, then the Democrats would not have pushed a leftist agenda? If so, please provide the link.
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:33 AM
meathead:
Oh come on. The GOP is supposed to get a message because some people on the right voted for a guy that is at best a spoiler? They will get the message when you can back a winner.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:34 AM
Galt must be a libertarian. They can twist words with the best of them I’ll have to give them that. Scary part is I think they really believe they’re making sense. Contradiction after contradiction.
To use your logic, you must never go to war because someone somewhere won’t support it, we shouldn’t like the UN but we shouldn’t be against them or else we’ll have to go it alone, which isn’t a good thing because then we’d be accused of going it alone and that’s as bad as being beholden to the UN…..I’m getting dizzy…
75% support for something is thin but going to war with that support is politically worse than Obama ramming healthcare through with over 60% against. You work for the MSM because they need some better spinners…
Whippet on February 10, 2010 at 12:37 AM
No, Michelle said that Bush presocialized the economy or whatever so that Obama could come in to office and have his way with us. As if he would not have anyway.
But at least she did not put the Dubya ports thing on the list, you know, when Bush tried to sell our ports to terrorists and all that.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:37 AM
I’d like to think the GOP actually got the message with Dede, but perhaps not… OK, so let’s say that in Dede’s district, 15% of the GOP writes in Zombie Reagan. That doesn’t make the news? Perhaps the state news? The national news? Maybe the GOP says, “Oh, wait… we can’t run Dede because she’s nothing like this Zombie Reagan fellow that these people all liked.”
OK, and here’s the beauty of the whole scheme, if it doesn’t send a message, then
1) You still can vote for someone you agree with more, and perform your civic duty.
2) You don’t cause the loss of a RINO, because they were going to lose in your state anyway.
Now, why exactly does this idea bother you so much? It doesn’t affect you.
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:38 AM
Is it your position that if Iran detonated a nuke in the US that you wouldn’t see WWII levels of support for going to war? If so, I disagree.
As I said, only history can make the judgment as to “the right thing”. But the political cost is undeniable.
Nothing involving our government, not even war, transcends politics. You’ll note, the decision to go to war is placed in the hands of the most overtly political branch of the government.
JohnGalt23 on February 10, 2010 at 12:38 AM
NO! MM is saying that Bush may have made it easier for an Obama agenda (since he actually signed off on part of it, she’s right). You’re inferring that she meant that Obama would not have pushed his agenda if Bush hadn’t first signed off on it. Michelle Malkin is NOT saying that. That is what you are attempting to construe from her words. That’s not fair or right.
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:40 AM
Political necessity. Google it or something. He needed Congressional support and wasn’t going to get it without going through the motions. Get it?
I said I was done, but you inspire me. Your especially silly flailing is starting to look pathetic. Kicking a dead horse and all. Phhhht.
Of course Bush wasn’t perfect. Neither was he the Devil.
Perspective. Get some.
Good night, JohnGaltWannabe23orSomething.
hillbillyjim on February 10, 2010 at 12:41 AM
meathead:
The national GOP did not pick that candidate, the locals did. And that is my point. You have to work with the party on a local level. And who won that race? Ah yes, the Democrat.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:42 AM
So it has to be a nuke? Or does it just have to be a country? I thought the planes into the world trade center, the pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania were bad enough don’t you? Apparently not.
Whippet on February 10, 2010 at 12:43 AM
Indeed they did. They must have thought the local conservatives would have gone for her.
Yes, you do…
Yep… This doesn’t contradict ANYTHING I’m saying about people making their voices heard in a presidential election and then influencing their local party for future LOCAL elections.
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:44 AM
And don’t forget GWB signed the vile McCain-Feingold Trash-The-First-Amendment bill.
But – do I miss him? Hell, yes.
pbundy on February 10, 2010 at 12:47 AM
Not fair? Oh please. Well making up words like presocialism and then invented the meaning for them is not really fair either.
I could just as easily argue that if Bush had not agreed to some money being put into the financial system to stabilize it, the whole thing might have collapsed and the Obama administration would have used that crisis to enact even more legislation and more programs.
The TARP money that was loaned out under Bush has mostly been paid back. If we are going to talk about mights, I could say that if McCain had won it just might be that the money loaned out would be all repaid and the balance returned to the Treasury.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:48 AM
One more quickie, and I’m gone.
Yes.
There was a strong isolationist movement pre-Pearl Harbor, and anyone who isn’t Rip Van Winkle knows about the opposition to Nam. Good grief.
Nitey-nite.
hillbillyjim on February 10, 2010 at 12:49 AM
Galt,
Your idea of what is “worthy” of war is of the 25%. Mine is with the 75%.
I grew up in the 60′s and watched the democrats and the media distort and propagandize Vietnam. And that propaganda had nothing to do with whether that was a war worth fighting. It had everything to do with the despicable lengths liberals will go to to regain or retain power. Including demonizing the brave men and women who at that time were drafted into that war.
Whippet on February 10, 2010 at 12:49 AM
I never said any such thing. Someone opposed wWII, and yet we clearly should have fought that war.
But when a full quarter of your population can’t be brought around to fight what is supposed to be an existential threat to our nation’s existence, then a POTUS should at least reconsider his political strategy… which Bush clearly didn’t do until he handed Congress over to the Dems.
Damn right we should be opposed to threats our national sovereignty. I’m sorry you seem to disagree.
Really? I’m pretty sure I said we have a State Department to garner the support of other nations. You do know that is one of the functions of the Department of State, don’t you?
Really? I’m pretty sure I said threats to our national security are the matters of the Executive, the Congress, and the people.
Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension.
I’m pretty sure you came here ditzy.
Oh, you said dizzy? Well, I’m sure you can see how I made the mistake.
So, going to war isn’t a far more serious matter than domestic policy?
I can see why you are a Bush supporter.
JohnGalt23 on February 10, 2010 at 12:51 AM
Yes, it does contradict it. Dede was just a party functionary who was known to the local party, no doubt she got the nod because it was her turn or something. And the locals were not paying enough attention to who was making these choices to even realize what a lot of her positions on the issues were.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 12:52 AM
And taking my statements out of context I can see you are a Ron Paul supporter.
Whippet on February 10, 2010 at 12:53 AM
Hey, you’re the one criticizing MM for something that she didn’t even say. Aren’t you the one advocating that people should stop criticizing? Yet, you twist her words to benefit your claim against her. That’s not fair.
You could make that argument. That doesn’t make what Bush did any more right. That doesn’t mean that Michelle Malkin SAID/Believes that Obama was somehow empowered by Bush’s agreement.
You’re the only one talking about mights. Michelle Malkin isn’t. I’m not talking about mights when it comes to TARP. I’m saying I flat out disagree with Bush.
Now, I’m off to bed. I seriously don’t understand why you are criticizing Michelle Malkin for things she didn’t say, condemning those that don’t agree with the GOP (local or nat’l) of unfair/uncalled for/whatever criticism. You haven’t been able to show that voting third party in a solidly blue state is a bad thing. I don’t know what you’re angle is, but I’m out of here. Goodnight.
MeatHeadinCA on February 10, 2010 at 12:54 AM
Grow up…the two aren’t always mutually exclusive.
Whippet on February 10, 2010 at 12:56 AM
Terrye,
While you and I have definately had our moments, meathead and Galt are just here to play games. You know, kind of like the telephone game where one starts out saying one thing and it changes in the conversation? They don’t intend to make sense, they just play. Senseless waste of time.
Good luck and good night.
Whippet on February 10, 2010 at 1:00 AM
I am the only one talking about mights? You said yourself that MM said that Bush may have made it easier for an Obama agenda to be enacted or whatever.
I never said that MM could not criticize Bush or anyone else. I just disagree with some of the criticisms and I made the point that it might be helpful if people on the right spent more time supporting people they do like rather than just the constant sniping at people like Bush. After all, Bush is not a pundit. He really had to make decisions. And stand by them.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 1:00 AM
Whippet:
Thanks and good night to you.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 1:01 AM
And nearly none on 12/08/45, as evidenced by the vote in Congress.
Apparently, you must have been asleep in 1965, when Congress nearly unanimously voted to grant Johnson war authority.
Even by 1968, according to La guerre du Vietnam et la société américaine by Bernadette Rigal-Cellard:
So, just 24% stood in oppostion to the war in February ’68, and that was enough to cause Johnson to not seek reelection. And Bush thought worse support at the beginning of a war was sufficient.
Yeah, there’s some good political sense.
JohnGalt23 on February 10, 2010 at 1:06 AM
Odd. I never did catch that news story that said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I mean, I saw GWB say on any number of occasions say they weren’t, so I took his word for it.
Boy, I’m glad you cleared that one up for me.
JohnGalt23 on February 10, 2010 at 1:10 AM
He cut taxes…that alone should make everyone miss him….
GW was one of the best Prez we had…and history will vindicated him as it did Lincoln and Reagan.
dec5 on February 10, 2010 at 1:28 AM
I miss the hell out of George Walker Bush. The ‘Day in the life of’ posts at freerepublic.com always made me proud.
daesleeper on February 10, 2010 at 1:44 AM
Bush had the War on Islamonatzis part right. He was pretty good on taxes as well. Other than those two issues, he was driving on the wrong side of the road.
Obama is trying to drive off of the cliff.
shorebird on February 10, 2010 at 2:00 AM
Let’s not get ridiculous. I miss Bush. The comparison is oh so sharp. McCain, I can imagine, wouldn’t be nearly as retarded.
Vanbasten on February 10, 2010 at 2:14 AM
I miss him and not ashamed to say it. I miss his solid pro-life stance.
Glynn on February 10, 2010 at 2:14 AM
I’d also like to add, GW’s faith in God, was his saving grace. It always seem to give him peace.
dec5 on February 10, 2010 at 3:07 AM
He gave us Roberts and Alito. That alone was worth it.
scotash on February 10, 2010 at 4:14 AM
I miss the pre-Obama era because we had presidents who at least realized the US is a democracy and not a socialist state.
Why, my goodness, they even used the real Presidential Seal instead of some creepy red white and blue O. Imagine that!
Certainly the trend for decades has been toward bigger government. That didn`t start with Obama. And we need to start reversing it and that means from the local level up. IF we can reverse course, that is . . . .
But Obama is looking California and feels more like Socialisme to me.
And tell that miserable bastard to get his feet off of that magnificent desk.
And tell him we have 50 states and explain the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day to him . . . and . . . swatting a fly ain`t nothing to brag about . . . . and learn how to say corpsmen without it sounding like he is talking about Dawn of the Dead or something . . . .
I was not overly impressed with Bush, true.
But Obama is in a whole `nother league. A whole `nother reality.
Yep. I want Obama to fail. I want him to taste of the sweet earth after getting tackled. I want him to see stars (fifty will do)!
Oh, how wondrous!
Sherman1864 on February 10, 2010 at 4:16 AM
amen
cmsinaz on February 10, 2010 at 6:48 AM
What I miss is a pro-American President. What we have is an anti-Constitutional “progressive”/marxist-type president, who does not believe in or accept American exceptionalism. We have a president who subordinates American interests to what he thinks are “world” interests. I don’t agree with some of what Bush did (big government, pro-amnesty), as shown in the bullet points, above, but Bush was a great Commander-in-Chief. This president Obama is a zero when it comes to national defense. This president is worse than zero when it comes to economic growth, taxes and statist government. We need to oust these anti-constitution progressives and put real Americans back in power. NOW.
BottomLine5 on February 10, 2010 at 7:00 AM
From the Yahoo article on this subject:
Really? Does anyone know anyone who interpreted the billboard that way?
This candy-ass RINO misses the man…desperately!
Least of These on February 10, 2010 at 7:08 AM
I miss him. I didn’t vote for GWB but I came to respect and eventually admire him.
Urban Infidel on February 10, 2010 at 7:28 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
At least when Bush held hands with them it put us on an equal footing as opposed to the dhimmi status of Obama’s bow.
Disturb the Universe on February 10, 2010 at 7:42 AM
So, I get up this morning to go to work and low and behold, I am snowed in..again. So I come back here and look at MM’s list again, and most of it still does not make sense to me…for instance hillary care for housing, what does that even mean?
I hope all those folks out there who stood side by side with the left to undermine and attack Bush for all manner of things, such as nonsense noted above..are proud of themselves today. And no doubt if McCain had won a lot of the people on the right who went after Bush for silly stuff like enabling Arlen Specter would no doubt be doing their best to find reasons to hate McCain. In fact I think Palin would have ended up on their list too.
BTW, Specter and Bush got into it over embryonic stem cell research. Bush opposed more federal money to destroy more embryos. Specter did not. But then who cares if Bush was a moral man.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 7:43 AM
Yes, that is true..and exactly what does the statement mean? What was Bush supposed to do? Kowtowing as opposed to what exactly? This is just another cheap shot.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 7:45 AM
No, they are not.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 7:47 AM
Ironically, that purchased him no love from the NEA.
I can’t wait until teachers wake up to Obama’s education goals: longer school days, less vacation time, merit pay, charter schools.
Disturb the Universe on February 10, 2010 at 7:47 AM
+1000
Disturb the Universe on February 10, 2010 at 7:49 AM
No one said they were. But Saddam was a supporter of international terrorism and had been for years. In fact Zarqawi went straight from Afghanistan to Iraq for a reason.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM
I can remember when Reagan said he would shut down the Dept of Education and failed to do it. Why? Because most people actually consider issues like education to be of vital importance. Bush also held teachers accountable for their performance in the classroom and he supported vouchers for people who wanted alternatives to public education.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 7:52 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
I miss First Term Bush who actually would get his hands dirty combating the moronic Left. He wouldn’t have let them blame him for a hurricane hitting New Orleans. Second Term Bush was pretty much a disappointment except for Alito and Roberts.
Speedwagon82 on February 10, 2010 at 8:19 AM
May this be the last time you trot that tired old horse out, ever again. Please.
LTC John on February 10, 2010 at 8:41 AM
And I really miss Cheney.
Disturb the Universe on February 10, 2010 at 8:41 AM
Well second term Bush did try to reform social security and got very little support from the right in the process. They sure did not make as much noise about that as they did TARP. And second term Bush stabilized Bush. The truth is a lot happened when Bush was in office, including natural disasters and because of that he had a lot more on his plate. That makes a difference too. In his second term Bush had to deal with a Democratic Congress as well. I remember Reagan making some compromises as well when he was forced to deal with the other party.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 8:44 AM
Yes, exactly. I mean the idea of managing a war is in of itself naive.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 8:46 AM
I should have said second term Bush stabilized Iraq. sloppy me.
Terrye on February 10, 2010 at 8:48 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »