Time: You know, Obama acts a lot like … Bush

posted at 8:48 am on March 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama may have promised Hope and Change, but Mark Halperin writes today in Time that Obama has brought More of the Same instead.  That doesn’t extend to policy, Halperin argues, although Obama keeps backing into George Bush’s policies by default.  Halperin mentions Afghanistan, but here he forgets that Obama ran on the promise to fight in Afghanistan more robustly than Bush did, and so far he’s kept that promise after wasting four months trying to make up his mind.  On military commissions, the Patriot Act, and even Gitmo at the moment, Obama has found himself pushed back to Bush-era policies as his own unrealistic promises collapse around him.

Halperin, though, refers to process in his criticism, and says that Obama didn’t learn from his predecessor even while spending most of two years blasting him from the campaign trail:

Who would have thought that one of Barack Obama’s biggest missteps as president would be repeating some of the bad habits of George W. Bush? No single factor was more instrumental in Obama’s 2008 victory than his pledge to completely reverse the nation’s course once in the White House. Instead, over the past year, Obama has mimicked some of Bush’s most egregious blunders, leading to much of the political predicament in which the present decider finds himself today.

This is not to say that Obama has maintained Bush’s policies, although his administration’s continuity on issues ranging from Afghanistan to Wall Street has alienated the left. And he certainly hasn’t done himself any favors by failing to inspire the general public to rally around his agenda. But Obama’s stumbles atop the high-wire of running the federal government has created perhaps the greatest danger to his presidency, and they are oddly reminiscent of the misguided practices which tripped up his predecessor.

These are the four mistakes Halperin accuses Obama of repeating:

  • No chief economic spokesperson
  • Failure to integrate policy, politics, and communication
  • Tying his administration’s fate too closely to Congressional leaders
  • Failure to empower Cabinet members on domestic policy

Three of these are inside-baseball issues, hardly the kind of supposed failures that would cause 20-point shifts in public opinion polls.  The second makes almost no sense at all; Halperin accuses the White House of failing to move “strong, serious ideas” from his policy wonks to Obama’s speeches in an effective manner.  That may be the only thing working as intended in this White House.  The President gives good speeches almost every day, and has “dramatic public events” almost every week.  Obama’s failure is not recognizing that his “strong, serious ideas” are outside the mainstream in the first place, and that his speeches aren’t enough to convince a center-right nation to adopt his leftist agenda.

Halperin hits the bullseye on the third point, but fails to understand why it happened:

When Bush ran for president, he, like Obama, suggested he would regularly cross his own party’s congressional wing when he thought they were dead wrong. And Obama, like Bush, has lashed himself over and over to the political fortunes of the Capitol Hill portion of his party, allowing the agenda and vision of Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, and a covey of mostly liberal committee chairs to define the public image of the Democratic Party and determine what his administration can accomplish.

Bush got less interested in leading on legislative issues after 9/11, and his big foray back into that realm in 2005 with Social Security reform flopped on partisan bickering.  Obama, on the other hand, has yet to take any interest in leadership at all — and on his own policy agenda items, such as ObamaCare.  His problem is that he’s too interested in the integration of politics and communications; all he ever does is give speeches.   From the first days of his presidency, Obama has abdicated that role to Nancy Pelosi, and more than a year later, still hasn’t demanded it back.

Why did he let Pelosi run wild?   Obama had no experience as an executive, and allowed himself to get rolled by party leadership.  Many of us warned about his inexperience during the campaign.  Obama not only had no experience as an executive, he had very little experience as an effective and actice legislator.  It’s not much of a surprise now that Obama has delegated most of the policy work back to his party leadership, which he mostly did in the Senate and in the Illinois legislature.

The real lesson here is not that Obama is making the same mistakes as Bush.  It’s that Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.


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

Time: You know, Obama acts a lot like … Bush

If only!

Laura in Maryland on March 8, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Every first Barack Obama reaction is wrong. Every one of them.

drjohn on March 8, 2010 at 8:53 AM

Yea; I remember watching Bush PICK HIS NOSE IN THE OVAL OFFICE!

Cybergeezer on March 8, 2010 at 8:54 AM

It’s hard to empower your cabinet members when you undercut them with powerful czars.

myrenovations on March 8, 2010 at 8:54 AM

“TIME?” DON’T WASTE ANY MORE OF MINE!

Cybergeezer on March 8, 2010 at 8:55 AM

I remember Bush showing up for major public appearances without a tie on…not. He wore a jacket and tie just going down to the Oval Office…out of respect.

kingsjester on March 8, 2010 at 8:56 AM

It’s that Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.

He’s still not prepared nor will he ever be, And the media will continue to prop him up like a god.

SHARPTOOTH on March 8, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Brother, can you spare some change?

rightside on March 8, 2010 at 8:56 AM

YEA; I REMEMBER BUSH ENTERTAINING AMY WINEHOUSE IN THE SITUATION ROOM.

Cybergeezer on March 8, 2010 at 8:56 AM

YEA; I REMEMBER LAURA SAYING HER DAUGHTERS WERE TOO FAT!

Cybergeezer on March 8, 2010 at 8:58 AM

He’s nothing like Bush. As a conservative who tired of Bush’s incessant spending sprees, he at least had some ethics and (unfortunately) reached across the aisle. Our current President is a liar whose idea of bipartisanship is “I won.”

search4truth on March 8, 2010 at 8:58 AM

So,everything that Obama campaigned on,was actually
the opposite!!

Me thinks,Obama is going to have a mutiny soon,
unless he gets something done!!

canopfor on March 8, 2010 at 8:58 AM

The real lesson here is not that Obama is making the same mistakes as Bush.  It’s that Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.

BINGO. I would also add that Obama is a liberal ideologue. Anyone who opposes him or hinders his process of implementing what he wants, is thrown under the bus. He doesn’t accept disagreement at all because he would always reply ‘I WON’.

cubachi on March 8, 2010 at 8:58 AM

YEA; I REMEMBER BUSH ALWAYS TELLING US NOT TO CALL TERRORISTS BY THEIR REAL NAME.

Cybergeezer on March 8, 2010 at 9:00 AM

YEA; I REMEMBER BUSH ALWAYS GIVING COSTUME JEWELRY AND CD’S OF RAP MUSIC TO ALL THE FOREIGN DIGNITARIES.
AND BUSH WOULD ALWAYS BOW SO POLITELY!

Cybergeezer on March 8, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Obama’s biggest failure, the systemic failure, is his ability to pivot. He hasn’t been able to pivot on anything. As a matter of fact, he is still running on the same promising he made on the campaign trail before the current O’pression began. The only hint of a pivot came when the Democrats called their massive spending and payoff bill .. a “stimulus” .. and even that proved to be a mistake because it did no such thing.

J_Crater on March 8, 2010 at 9:03 AM

The real lesson here is not that Obama is making the same mistakes as Bush. It’s that Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.

Yet they’re conducting polls on a weekly basis asking people if Palin’s qualified to be President. Funny how a lifetime of experience is suddenly required in order to be Commander-in-Chief.

Doughboy on March 8, 2010 at 9:03 AM

I think this article is unfair – destroying America is hard work!

OldEnglish on March 8, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Bush wasn’t the best President ever, but at least he defended America. The worst president, after Jimmy Carter, currently apologizes for the United States of America, wants to try it’s enemies in Federal courts and give them attorneys, and wants big government to run our lives….that’s just a little different from what our forefathers had in mind. I guess change isn’t always for the better.

afotia on March 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Where were all these critical and hard-hitting “journalists” in 2008?

It probably would have worked out better for all of us if you guys had come up for air once in a while during the election.

Mord on March 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM

I remember Bush, on his way out, saying that anyone in that office would have made the same decisions he made. Well, we have living proof of that… and then some!

PrincipledPilgrim on March 8, 2010 at 9:06 AM

“………O’pression…..”
J_Crater on March 8, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Perfect term!
END THE O’PRESSION!

Cybergeezer on March 8, 2010 at 9:06 AM

I believe that Afghanistan and Iraq are going well and that Republicans would do well to praise the administration for what’s going on there.

Obama is going to take credit for it anyway, if it continues to go well (even though President Bush did the heavy lifting) and the Republicans can show that they are not the party of “no” in everything and that unlike Democrats, we don’t cheer for the other side when the opposition party is in charge of the war.

Otherwise, Obama has been a complete failure, but I think giving him credit for Iraq and Afghanistan is the right thing to do and as a bonus, it will have the nutroots shrieking in fury.

NoDonkey on March 8, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Nice job of vetting, msm.

OmahaConservative on March 8, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Why did he let Pelosi run wild? Obama had no experience as an executive, and allowed himself to get rolled by party leadership. Many of us warned about his inexperience during the campaign.

Obama knows exactly what he’s doing, staying above the fray and letting others do the heavy lifting. He can then later claim their success for himself or throw them under the bus – Gates/Clinton in the case of Afghanistan, which is still an irrelevant backwater.

In the meantime he is taking over swaths of the American economy and putting his people and new governmental structures in place on key positions in society.

The whole thing is working brilliantly. Congress is blamed for the failures, but his own approval rating holds steady just under 50 percent. People still like the guy, for reasons that mistify me. They want to blame his problems on inexperience or Congress or Bush or whatever.

Congress may or may not succeed in ramming healthcare through. It does not matter. A Republican Congress might actually help Obama’s chances in 2012. He will take credit for even the most pathetic economic stabilization or recovery and probably win against a Republican candidate that only appeals to the 40 percent conservative base.

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM

No economic spokesperson? What is Pete Orszag? Zero’s got everyone talking about his economic policies including the retreads on his deficit reduction panel. It’s just that people quit buying his snake oil early on. He still doesn’t get it that you just can’t spend that much money when you don’t have it, and he can’t create jobs when he’s never had a real one.

Kissmygrits on March 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM

I remember when Reagan came into office and was setting up his cabinet. He asked the best minds of their specific area of expertise to come to D.C. to help him outline his agenda and put it into action. Mr. Obama picks people on the basis of what they brought to Mr. Obama in the way of funding and votes and passing the governing to others. I don’t think it is a coincident that his bemused fans keep referring to his campaign while wondering what happened.

Cindy Munford on March 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Obama knows exactly what he’s doing, staying above the fray and letting others do the heavy lifting. He can then later claim their success for himself or throw them under the bus – Gates/Clinton in the case of Afghanistan, which is still an irrelevant backwater.

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM

He’s trying to do this, but I disagree on how successful it is. The voting “present” strategery worked during the campaign because he could function as a blank slate, but he’s the President now. The country is looking to him to lead. Poll numbers in the mid-40s are not a good sign this early in the guy’s first term.

If Congress was actually competent, then what he’s doing would be fine. He can let them do the heavy lifting and claim credit for their accomplishments and distance himself when things go badly. But Pelosi and Reid have been an unmitigated disaster.

Doughboy on March 8, 2010 at 9:16 AM

Time Magazine continues to represent the fact they are completely delusional when it becomes to reality. I used to line my cat’s litter box with Time and Newsweek, but even my cat won’t urinate on either rag.

volsense on March 8, 2010 at 9:19 AM

The real lesson here is not that Obama is making the same mistakes as Bush. It’s that Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.

Perfectly stated.

The inexperienced,failed community organizer that was sold to over 50% of this nation,has made a mockery of “Hope and Change” and idiots of the people that voted for it.

You can bet that experience will be a key factor in the 2012 Presidential race as Mr. 57 states is bounced out and relegated to hollywood and liberal activism alongside the likes of the Al Gore’s and Micheal Moore’s.

That is the only avenue Obama will be able to take since results,accomplishments, and reality are not tied to the adoration that liberals install on their “leaders”.

…All hail Obama:
…..our Warmonger….wiretapping….rendition loving….chicken hawk President.

Baxter Greene on March 8, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Why did he let Pelosi run wild?

For whatever reason, that sentence left me with images of Pelosi running around South Padre Island on Spring break… topless. Way too early on a Monday for that image!

Seriously, this revisionist propaganda should not be allowed to stand. The filthy lying coward in the White House is nothing like Bush. The reason many of the Bush-era policies are still in place is that the rat bastard traitor has yet to lead so the status quo remains by default. Nevertheless 44 is nothing like 43.

highhopes on March 8, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Bush may have had his faults, but I don’t recall him giving speeches among the splendor of fake Roman columns.

pilamaye on March 8, 2010 at 9:25 AM

I remember Bush showing up for major public appearances without a tie on…not. He wore a jacket and tie just going down to the Oval Office…out of respect.

kingsjester on March 8, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Respect of office is beneath Obummer and his greatness…

ladyingray on March 8, 2010 at 9:26 AM

1) Bill Clinton faltered badly in the polls during his 1st term
2) He lost the Dem majority in Congress in the mid-terms
3) He regained his popularity by fighting (via triangulation) the GOP Congress, cruising to reelection
Obama, by pushing unpopular policies now, is seeking to repeat history.

jgapinoy on March 8, 2010 at 9:26 AM

No single factor was more instrumental in Obama’s 2008 victory than his pledge to completely reverse the nation’s course once in the White House.

Except maybe, just maybe, the utterly pathetic opponent he was matched up against?

Cylor on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Just wondering at what point in the next 2 1/2 years will Obama actually, you know, accept the office of President. As best I can tell, Bush must still be in charge, right. He seems to be the cause of everything. Am I missing something?

Sugar Land on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.

So true. And sadly, many voters were bedazzled.

publiuspen on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Halperin mentions Afghanistan, but here he forgets that Obama ran on the promise to fight in Afghanistan more robustly than Bush did, and so far he’s kept that promise after wasting four months trying to make up his mind.

The Lefties all knew
He was lying about this…
Or they thought they knew…

The Left has their own
“Dog Whistle”-type politics…
Though they deny it.

Haiku Guy on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

You can bet that experience will be a key factor in the 2012 Presidential race as Mr. 57 states is bounced out and relegated to hollywood and liberal activism alongside the likes of the Al Gore’s and Micheal Moore’s.

If experience becomes a key factor in the 2012, Obama will have a four year headstart.

Please, clueless conservatives, get off this this inexperience talking point! Obama’s problems have absolutely nothing to do with inexperience and everything with the fact that he is a doctrinaire ideologue.

I don’t want an “experienced” Republican running in 2012. We need new people, Washington outsiders, not people like Romney or Huckabee just because it’s their turn.

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Mr. Obama picks people on the basis of what they brought to Mr. Obama in the way of funding and votes and passing the governing to others. I don’t think it is a coincident that his bemused fans keep referring to his campaign while wondering what happened.

Cindy Munford on March 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM

More importantly, IMO, is all the advisors that are fellow street thugs from Chicago. The filthy lying coward, inexperienced and unfit for office, wasn’t even intelligent enough to surround himself with smart people. He created an inner circle that acts like an echo chamber with the same view of the world as the dictator in charge.

highhopes on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Bush racked them. Ob+ama’s running the table.

SKYFOX on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Time as usual is clueless. I stopped reading Time 2 years ago when I realized it is more of a wishy washy liberal propagandist arm.

Obama is not like Bush. He is hiding behind the Same Bush policies that he criticized. Of course Bus was right then and he is Right now.

The little man just can’t bring himself to admit that Bush was right.

antisocial on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Bush may have had his faults, but I don’t recall him giving speeches among the splendor of fake Roman columns.

pilamaye on March 8, 2010 at 9:25 AM

He also didn’t create an “Office of the President-Elect” logo either. These are the trappings necessary for a simple-minded fool who is so insecure in his position that he needs to constantly demonstrate that he is POTUS.

highhopes on March 8, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Last I checked, POTUS is not our primary legislative branch. I find it hard to fault either Bush or Obama for leaving the process of writing legislation to Congress. Yes, this entails more sausage than bacon, figuratively speaking, but that’s what the constitution envisions.

Ed, if you support extensive legislative drafting by the executive branch, this places you more in line with FDR or LBJ than with any conservative.

But then, I’ve often expressed the thought that much of the modern right-wing movement is more radical than it is conservative. What’s one more drop in the bucket, anyway?

cackcon on March 8, 2010 at 9:31 AM

The President gives good speeches almost every day only when campaigning against the GOP, and they still lack substance, and has “dramatic public events” almost every week

uknowmorethanme on March 8, 2010 at 9:32 AM

highhopes on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

It certainly seems that the more we know, the scarier they seem. It will be interesting to see if anyone (media) get nervous about the “Chicago Way”, that people have laughed nervously about for decades, go national.

Cindy Munford on March 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Bush racked them. Ob+ama’s running the table.

SKYFOX on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

No Bush broke the rack and put most of the balls hanging in pockets.

thomasaur on March 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Obama is not like Bush. He is hiding behind the Same Bush policies that he criticized.

antisocial on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

My blood was boiling this weekend as Obama’s people were taking credit for the largely positive Iraqi election. I’m sorry but the party that worked overtime trying to get an American failure in Iraq has no right to take credit for success. Had we listened to the filthy lying coward in the White House or any of his treasonous party.

highhopes on March 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM

<blockquoteTime: You know, Obama acts a lot like … Bush

If only!

Laura in Maryland on March 8, 2010 at 8:51 AM

If you take off your blinders, you’d be suprised how much of a RINO George W. Bush was. The only differences between Obama and Bush is that Obama took Bush’s massive spending and increased it, and George W. Bush has class.

If someone can give me a difference between Lindsey Graham and George W. Bush, I’d love to hear it.

uknowmorethanme on March 8, 2010 at 9:35 AM

But then, I’ve often expressed the thought that much of the modern right-wing movement is more radical than it is conservative. What’s one more drop in the bucket, anyway?

cackcon on March 8, 2010 at 9:31 AM

You don’t realize how right you are.

uknowmorethanme on March 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Last I checked, POTUS is not our primary legislative branch. I find it hard to fault either Bush or Obama for leaving the process of writing legislation to Congress.

cackcon on March 8, 2010 at 9:31 AM

These are absurd comments. From submitting a budget to setting a legislative agenda, the POTUS is hands-on when it comes to writing legislation.

highhopes on March 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.

Is blaming the media correct? Is it not part of the job of the opposition candidate to make sure the faults of his\her opponent are know to the public? I do not recall a focused campaign by McCain pointing out Obama’s utter lack of experience for the job.

We may complain about career politicians, but I prefer that our Presidents have been tested as Governors first.

WashJeff on March 8, 2010 at 9:38 AM

He also didn’t create an “Office of the President-Elect” logo either. These are the trappings necessary for a simple-minded fool who is so insecure in his position that he needs to constantly demonstrate that he is POTUS.

Again, Obama knows exactly what he’s doing.

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Is blaming the media correct? Is it not part of the job of the opposition candidate to make sure the faults of his\her opponent are know to the public? I do not recall a focused campaign by McCain pointing out Obama’s utter lack of experience for the job.

Why shift the blame from Obama to the media?! And now even McCain! McCain ran on the ridiculous “Not ready to lead” line; most under-40s understandably disagreed!

Can’t you see this inexperience argument excuses Obama for his actual choices and actions?

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM

And then you’re also buying into and coopting the emerging leftist argument that Obama is like Bush. So what is your point?!

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Just wondering at what point in the next 2 1/2 years will Obama actually, you know, accept the office of President. As best I can tell, Bush must still be in charge, right. He seems to be the cause of everything. Am I missing something?

Sugar Land on March 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

I am willing to bet my next paycheck that Obama will in fact work that into his reelection bid if he gets the Dem party nod. Somehting like “the failed policies of the previous administration have made our job more difficult than we were aware of, and we need more time to counter those bad decisions.”

Johnnyreb on March 8, 2010 at 9:43 AM

1) Bill Clinton faltered badly in the polls during his 1st term
2) He lost the Dem majority in Congress in the mid-terms
3) He regained his popularity by fighting (via triangulation) the GOP Congress, cruising to reelection
Obama, by pushing unpopular policies now, is seeking to repeat history.

jgapinoy on March 8, 2010 at 9:26 AM

I see the point you’re trying to make but I am not sure this situation can be compared with Clinton’s. After all, Clinton’s first term was marked by an economic recovery, which he took full credit for even though it began 18 months before the media elected him in 1992. O’bama on the other hand started his first term with the economy in terrible shape. And he wasted his entire first yeat in office not doing anything about it.

In addition, the country wasn’t at war when Clinton was in office.

As for the 1996 election, Clintoon “cruised” to a win mainly due to the ineptness of his “opponent”. In 2012 O’bama won’t have that luxury.

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Anyone see the new ACLU ad that ran yesterday? Shows a photo montage of O’bama morphing into Bush. I laughed so hard I choked on my dog food.

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Clinton’s first term was marked by an economic recovery, which he took full credit for …

Obama will probably be able to take credit for stabilization or recovery from the lows of 2008, no matter how fake or pathetic.

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Obama, by pushing unpopular policies now, is seeking to repeat history.

jgapinoy on March 8, 2010 at 9:26 AM

Bambi is not that smart. He only turns left. Bush policies remain in place because Barry pisses his pants at every military briefing and has no clue what is going on. He is only interested in destroying the economy so socialism can save us.

DeweyWins on March 8, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Anyone see the new ACLU ad that ran yesterday? Shows a photo montage of O’bama morphing into Bush. I laughed so hard I choked on my dog food.

So how is the leftist Obama=Bush meme helping us?! Explain to me…

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2010 at 9:43 AM

I’m not saying that everything in the two situations is the same, I’m just saying that BHO thinks having a GOP Congress will help him politically.

jgapinoy on March 8, 2010 at 9:52 AM

He is only interested in destroying the economy so socialism can save us.

He has already been working hard to put socialism in place as we speak. He already seized control over most of the economy. He doesn’t have to destroy the economy first; the collapse of the private sector is just a by-product of the process.

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:52 AM

So how is the leftist Obama=Bush meme helping us?! Explain to me…

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Here’s how:
Big spending: Bad
Reaganomics: Good

jgapinoy on March 8, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Here; You need a drink of kool aid!

Cybergeezer on March 8, 2010 at 9:54 AM

…Right after I clicked “Submit Comment” on my last comment, I regretted not substituting “Founders’ Intent” for “Reaganomics”, because someone might correctly point out that spending wasn’t all that curtailed during Reagan’s term, though Reagan would have wanted it to be. He had a Dem Congress to deal with, & he had to rebuild the military.

jgapinoy on March 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Yea; I remember watching Bush PICK HIS NOSE IN THE OVAL OFFICE!

Cybergeezer on March 8, 2010 at 8:54 AM

Yeah, I was a little disappointed; when folks said he was ‘picking his nose’ and ‘digging for gold’, I expected something far more than was there.

As it was, it had me thinking of the “not a pick!” Seinfeld episode.

*shrug*

Midas on March 8, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Bush spoke with compassion. Obama speaks with a TelePrompTer. Obama wouldn’t make a pimple on George W Bush’s ass.

Denverslim on March 8, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Here’s how:
Big spending: Bad
Reaganomics: Good

Still confused. You mean we should join the left in Bush bashing on fiscal grounds? Who would we win over with that argument?

BTW, Reagan did not cut the size of government. He cut taxes, which is a start, but he never got around to really dismantling FDR’s state apparatus.

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:58 AM

So how is the leftist Obama=Bush meme helping us?! Explain to me…

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Demoralization of the left-wing voters. Like conservatives in the last few elections, a sense that “your team” is hosing you can keep you home when election day comes around.

The more liberals that get disgusted with Obama for whatever reason and decide that their vote doesn’t matter and so will stay home instead of vote… the better.

Midas on March 8, 2010 at 10:01 AM

As for the 1996 election, Clintoon “cruised” to a win mainly due to the ineptness of his “opponent”.

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Clinton “cruised” to a win thanks to Perot. Even an inept Dole would’ve beaten him if Perot hadn’t been in the race.

Midas on March 8, 2010 at 10:03 AM

The real lesson here is not that Obama is making the same mistakes as Bush. It’s that Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.

Exactly, and I have no doubts the msm knows this. But in their own best interest, and ego….they will never admit it. So they continue to pander, skew, and outright omit the truth, or not tell the story at all….to keep their anointed one…anointed. He’s a miserable failure, and they know it!!!

capejasmine on March 8, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Can’t you see this inexperience argument excuses Obama for his actual choices and actions?

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM

His inexperience has nothing to do with his stupid policy ideas (e.g., ObamaCare, Cap & Trade, Porkulus, etc.).

His executive inexperience does show with his inability to get most of his policy ideas implemented. Given that his is the President now and his policies suck, we benefit, in some respects, that he is inexperienced. If he had executive experience, he might have already got this cr@p through.

WashJeff on March 8, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Respect of office is beneath Obummer and his greatness…

ladyingray on March 8, 2010 at 9:26 AM

As is the Constitution. Indeed, he believes, I’m conviced, that it is the Presidency and the Constitution that should bow to him, and certainly not the other way around. He and Clinton, and you might add in Wilson and FDR, all are/were of the same mind, but Obama makes them look like pikers when it comes to this.

TXUS on March 8, 2010 at 10:09 AM

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Yes, we certainly ought to criticize big-spending policies, no matter who has them.
Re. Reagan, I modified my statement in my next post.

jgapinoy on March 8, 2010 at 10:15 AM

This has got to be a racist attack….or something.

albill on March 8, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Clinton “cruised” to a win thanks to Perot. Even an inept Dole would’ve beaten him if Perot hadn’t been in the race.

Not true. Perot stole votes from both parties and didn’t do that well in the 1996 election anyway. Dole was a disaster. I supported Clinton at the time; he was the more libertarian option. Clinton was not an ideologue like Obama.

modifiedcontent on March 8, 2010 at 10:18 AM

He acts like Bush and governs like Bush. It’s up to the electorate to finally figure out that the pair are the same.

The Dean on March 8, 2010 at 10:27 AM

The real lesson here is not that Obama is making the same mistakes as Bush. It’s that Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.

Hole in one Ed!

dkeppner on March 8, 2010 at 10:29 AM

He acts like Bush and governs like Bush. It’s up to the electorate to finally figure out that the pair are the same.

The Dean on March 8, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Translated: “I was conned”.

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Clinton “cruised” to a win thanks to Perot. Even an inept Dole would’ve beaten him if Perot hadn’t been in the race.

Midas on March 8, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Perot wasn’t as much of a factor in 1996 as he was in 1992.
But I probably should have re-phrased my statement-it wasn’t Dole alone who was “inept”. The entire Republican field of candidates that year sucked.

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2010 at 10:51 AM

But he ran the best campaign in the history of the universe and he’s blessed with possesing the wisdom of Solomon!
That means he was the most qualified person in America for the Presidency! /snark

OxyCon on March 8, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Maybe he has become \”opposite Obama\” a la George Costanza…We can only hope….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUvKE3bQlY

joepub on March 8, 2010 at 11:57 AM

he ran the best campaign in the history of the universe

Especially in light of how he has been exposed as completely unequipped to perform his job.

It takes a special kind of talent to get tens of millions of people to vote to take a bite out of a crap sandwich, so my hat’s off to Barry on that one. Well done sir.

NoDonkey on March 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Time and again I am amused by the view that if only they got the communication right, the country would all roll up behind their statist agenda. Like more speeches, Issue focused PR directors, websites, and communication czars will change what people believe in their hearts to be true. This is a center right country–crack out the VHS and watch some Bill Clinton circa 1995 and learn.

Hochmeister on March 8, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Time institutes damage control. The points are funny

No chief economic spokesperson.

Nonsense. Christina Romer, A.K.A. Chuckles, is trotted out everytime they need someone to obfuscate their intentions

Failure to integrate policy, politics, and communication

This asumes Obama wants the public to know his intentions

Tying his administration’s fate too closely to Congressional leaders

Are they kidding? He needs someone to take the blame. Plus, this ideologue’s dreams are the Ends, not the Means

Failure to empower Cabinet members on domestic policy

The Cabinet is a sham Cabinet, while his unvetted Czars function as his advisers

Got to give Time credit for carrying water. It takes friends like Time, to give Obama more time

entagor on March 8, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Time and again I am amused by the view that if only they got the communication right, the country would all roll up behind their statist agenda.

They’re the kind of people who think that if you speak English loudly and slowly enough, the stupid foreigners will understand them.

Except we’re the stupid foreigners and we understand what they’re saying, we just oppose it.

NoDonkey on March 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Why did he let Pelosi run wild?   Obama had no experience as an executive, and allowed himself to get rolled by party leadership

haha!

Ya think that would happen to SP?

As for much like Bush

why isn’t the media treating him anywhere near the way they treated Bush?

Where are the freak shows?

“Time magazine”. Is part and parcel of the phonymedia and George Bush is far superior to Barry in all facets

he’s not a communist either

Sonosam on March 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Midas on March 8, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Leave The One alone on the nose attention. Cocaine makes the inside of the nose really a rough issue.

MSNBC could probably explain this.

SHARPTOOTH on March 8, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Going back to at least 1960, the issue of experience has never mattered much to the American voter. The pop culture has seen to that. They deeply resent responsible adults and you can list the qualities that are telling in the real world which are negatives to them. Most of them relate to mundane things like budgets..private property..self dicipline..personal morality…efficient government

IlikedAUH2O on March 8, 2010 at 1:09 PM

It’s that Obama was unprepared for this job in the first place, and the media didn’t bother to report that when it counted.

Bingo.

We can thank the media for not doing their job and allowing an inexperienced person to become President of the United States.

Conservative Samizdat on March 8, 2010 at 1:27 PM

It takes a special kind of talent to get tens of millions of people to vote to take a bite out of a crap sandwich, so my hat’s off to Barry on that one. Well done sir.

NoDonkey on March 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Don’t forget to tip your hat to the “objective” media. Had they done their job, he would have never even been the DNC nominee.

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2010 at 1:27 PM

What is this from the headlines?

Tea party candidates falling short Politico

Politico FOLKS hit You Tube you will find many videos showing Rick Perry at Tea Party events Tax Day April 15th. Rick Perry ran as the ultra conservative candidate – Tea Party -Constitutionalists. In fact Perry, was threatening to secede from the Union. Texas can go it alone talk…so who is zooming who here? I didn’t fall for Perry’s Tea Party posture. But he did convince a lot of people here in Texas, he’s their guy, and Sarah Palin supported him.

I think Medina was better representative of what Tea Party People believe in but she just wasn’t as well known a DARK HORSE. So what’s this about Tea Party isn’t getting their candidates elected? First there hasn’t been an election yet that was a primary run off and 2nd many people believe at least down here in Texas that Perry is part of the Tea Party Movement.

Why do Allah and Ed, let Politico get away with that crappy analysis when it is so easy to poke holes in?

Dr Evil on March 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM