E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSKeep your friends close, and your former presidents closer.
President Barack Obama is welcoming his favorite foil, former President George W. Bush, back to the White House on Thursday for the official unveiling of Bush's portrait. Given the history, the scene ought to be quite a picture.
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters file
President Barack Obama and former president George W. Bush are seen during the inauguration ceremony in Washington in this January 20, 2009 file photo.
Obama is still bad-mouthing Bush's time in office, and it's not just because of the debt and the unfinished wars Obama inherited. Obama sees Bush's economic ideas as the same as his current rival, Mitt Romney, so he lumps them together.
Which makes it a little awkward that Obama is about to preside as Bush's image and legacy are enshrined forever.
Never mind all that, say the Obama and Bush camps. This is a timeout for tradition.
The political reunion is expected to put aside any campaign rhetoric, as other gatherings among past and current presidents have, to honor nostalgia and the service of the former president and his wife, Laura.
In the heart of a re-election year, Obama will to get to rise above the fray for a day and play statesman.
He and his wife, Michelle, will host generations of Bushes for a private lunch, including former President George H.W. Bush and former first lady Barbara Bush. Family members will join them.
Then, in the ornate East Room, Obama and George W. Bush will speak as the portraits of the former president and Laura Bush are unveiled. The audience will be filled with friends and officials from Bush's two terms in office.
No one close to the current or former president expects the least sign of animus Thursday, particularly given that their transition in 2009 was handled with grace and that they have since shared moments of help and healing.
"President Bush has been around politics a long time. He's been around how presidents deal with each other for a long time," said Tony Fratto, one of his former spokesmen at the White House. "He has an understanding for separating the necessities of political rhetoric from the job itself."
Still, Bush has been holding his tongue for a long time. Obama has never run against Bush, although it was easy to forget that during the 2008 race between Obama and Sen. John McCain, when Bush's tenure was so often Obama's target.
In his inaugural address in 2009, Obama declared that "we are ready to lead once more," seen by some as a dig at Bush, who was seated over his shoulder. Even now, hardly a day goes by when Obama's team does not blame Bush for a mess.
It was just one week ago that Obama, revving up campaign donors, turned Bush into a punch line. Obama depicted presumptive Republican presidential nominee Romney as a peddler of bad economic ideas, helping the rich at the expense of the middle class. He then added: "That was tried, remember? The last guy did all this."
Now the last guy is coming back.
Only 44 men in history, and five men alive, have held the job.
It will be a rare limelight moment for Bush, who has not been back in more than two years.
Obama and Bush have a cordial and respectful relationship, but they are not close.
Both are political veterans who are able to separate political tactics from what they see as an overarching community among people who have served in the Oval Office, according to people close to them.
History has marked this moment before, with grudges put aside.
When Bill Clinton came back for his portrait unveiling, Bush lauded him for "the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president." This after he ran for the presidency to "restore honor and dignity" after Clinton's sex scandal.
And when Clinton welcomed back George H.W. Bush, whom he had defeated, he said to him and his wife: "Welcome home. We're glad to have you here."
"I would be surprised if there's very much tension" this time around, said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University who has long followed Bush's career.
Obama has enlisted Bush's help on earthquake relief for Haiti, and the two stood together in New York City last year in marking the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on America. They have also spoken at least three times at signature moments over the last three years, including the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Still, Obama's bashing of Bush's record sets a backdrop.
"This president is looking for someone to blame," Romney said while campaigning in Colorado this week. "Of course, he started off by blaming George Bush, and that worked for a while but, you know, after three and a half years that wears kind of thin."
The White House points out that Obama praises Bush sometimes, too, such as for taking on illegal immigration.
The visit is layered with political story lines.
Bush's brother Jeb is a potential vice presidential candidate to Romney. Bush's father has developed a kinship of sorts with Obama. And then there is Bush himself, who has endorsed Romney but is still viewed by many in his party as politically toxic.
More than any president in recent memory, Bush has not just intentionally faded from the public spotlight but all but disappeared from it.
Bush was last at the White House in January 2010 to help out with Haiti humanitarian relief.
Bush spokesman Freddy Ford said the former president and first lady are grateful to the Obamas and looking forward to catching up with faces from their past, including staff at the Executive Mansion.
Jenna Bush Hager, one of the George W. Bush's daughters, told "Fox & Friends" the day will be a chance to "celebrate his work, 'cause he worked pretty hard, so I think he deserves at least a painting."
As to where it will go, she said: "Probably in the very back somewhere. I'm just kidding."
Actually, the painting will hang prominently in the formal entrance hall to the White House, the Grand Foyer.
Leave a Comment:
First, Bush WAS president and deserves all the recognition for this achievement.
Second, with that recognition comes the responsibility of destroying this country both fiscally and morally. Bush set the policies that led to the worst economic collapse in 80 years at the same time making Americans scared little children ready to give up any right to keep them "safe". This is Bush's real legacy, the rich got richer and the weak got weaker...
We can never forget what Bush did to this country, which is why electing Rmoney will only exacerbate the problems Bush created.
LOL, Bush never left office, he just put on the Obama mask. Obama has done nothing but reapprove Bush policies and carry them even further. Romney would be even more of the same. The illusion of choice!
But, there is one choice that is different, too bad the mainstream media chooses to ignore the candidate that gives us the chance for actual CHANGE. No one but Ron Paul 2012!
well, 11 1/2 years later and 7 1/2 years later, I'm still not convinced bush won either election. And I will loath John Kerry till I die for just rolling over and taking his loss and the outrageous misdeeds in Ohio in '04 without even taking them to court. I think it was flagrant vote(r) tampering.
My only consolation is that Cheney thought it was too dangerous to go to Canada for a speaking engagement... Canada!!
Luckily, these morons are trapped here and can't infect the rest of the world.
Thomas, let me help you. Bush won.
We the corporations
Knock of the assinine talking points. The majority of Americans don't believe that crap anymore. It is only the 5%'s like yourself, and your cohorts here at MSNBC, that believe it. November will show you and Obama the door. Can't wait for the Wisconsin vote next Tuesday. It is going to be so much fun watching your buddy the horse's ass Mr. Ed.
OMG an entire family of them......I just don't think I could do it! Good luck to the Obama's.
Bill, are you stupid or just under-informed?
SCOTUS stopped the Florida recount and we'll never know who won. If you ever picked up a book, you'd know that Ohio was jam-packed with GOP voter fraud and precincts in black neighborhoods were shut down and under-equipped to where lines were around the block to vote. Even if you're a brain-dead fascist GOPer, you should recognize that voter fraud and disenfranchising voters systematically, ANY VOTERS, means that we just stepped away from a democratic process. So my question to you,Bill, is, "Do you believe in democracy or do you believe like Joseph Stalin that you have a right to control the ballot box?"
One of the most disgusting things I have ever seen in politics was Gore trying to stop the counting of overseas votes from our military because he expected it to favor bush. Any true American would never try to stop others from voting.PERIOD.
JH...you WISH it were only 5%. Most of America, and I truly mean America, knows what an FU the shrub was/is. It's mind blowing that anyone would still defend him, though the pugs specialize in revising and rewriting history.
Thomas,
While you may have a few valid points the vitriol with which you present them robs you of any credibility. You obviously are overly emotional about this, to the point where you personally hate Bush as a person and not just his policies. This makes it impossible for you to speak in an objective manner or to win anyone over to your way of thinking. I encourage you to reclaim some level of civility going forward, people might accept what you have to say if they don't feel attacked and insulted.
W is a Son of Bush Sr. (SOB?)
Uh No you are full of sh it, How’s that for civility. Until YOU realize that retardicans don't give a sh it what you think your pseudo intellectualism is worth what it costs, nothing. The retardicans would just as soon see you lying dead on the street. That would be one less whiner they would have to deal with. It's an un declared war and you are in the way. Your poor attempts at trying to be non partisan are useless with the retardicans, you are ignorant to think otherwise. You are not going to change one opinion on this planet via this blog or anywhere else you go. So buck up and save your idealisitic bull sh it for a library or church.
RE;
The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:
That look was followed in November by an analysis by a consortium of media outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, CNN and AP. It determined that George W. Bush still would have won under either legally possible recount scenario which could have occurred: The Florida Supreme Court ordered recount of undervotes statewide or Gore’s request for a recount in certain counties. The New York Times led its November 12, 2001 front page article, “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,” by reporters Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder:
In summarizing the consortium’s findings, however, the November 13, 2001 MRC CyberAlert recounted CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather gave equal weight to a scenario which never could have occurred, a statewide recount of all overvotes in which the intent of the voter would have been intuited, as to how Bush would still have won in the only legally possible scenario, a recount of undervotes:
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/05/25/reminder-bush-won-florida-recounts-conducted-media#ixzz1wSSjw5u9
Yep, Dadoftim, I remember that too. Unless there was some conspiracy (and there will always be those claiming one) then bush slid through and won FL. I would have much rather have had Gore from the beginn ing. We wouldn't have the debt we have today if he had won. The whole Kerry thing was a blur and I wasn't paying attention as well as I should have been.
Haha, Offtheirheads. You may be right, and people may not care to hear what I have to say. They may even want me dead on the street. But I refuse to be drawn in to the ugly partisan political slough that is so prevalent on here and seemingly everywhere else. We are not at war, we are in disagreement. Imagine what a little mutual respect could do for both sides of the aisle. We can agree to disagree. We can agree that we will oppose eachother's views. We can even agree to hate each other. But to succumb to viciousness, guarantees that we will never agree on anything. It cannot be justified by saying that one side or the other is just as vicious and nasty. When did we stop trying to see how close we could get to being the best, instead of how bad we can be without being the worst? You may laugh and call me naive, but I know that I am not. I merely choose to maintain my civility despite the slough. I have my opinions and I have chosen a side because of my convictions but I will not deride others for doing the same and coming to an opposite conclusion.
Keep talking the MSNBC talking points. You need to educate yourself on what caused the meltdown. Dodd and Frank did not help, Clintons everyone should have a house plan did not help, and by the way we had a terrorist attack because good ole Billy did not get Osama when he had a chance.
Uh...No
Some of the lefties are just very upset right now. They see the Walker polls in Wisconsin and the polls of President Obama and Romney tied, it isn't a pretty sight for them. The hatred on the left has been sickening since we elected our current President. I get tired of hearing how the right is racist, wants sick people to just die, wants dirty air and water, doesn't care about the poor, wants tax cuts for the rich, and on and on. Everything wrong in America is Bush's fault because the dems in Congress were just fooled by everything he did, even though he was an idiot. Watch out when the left doesn't get their way.
1/20/2013 - the end of an error
@Uh... No
Thanks. You're probably right. I don't see how anyone who loves their country can be unemotional about bush. He is a criminal who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them our own. That's without even getting into his economic theivery and election jerry-mandering. I will readily admit to having strong feelings about that fool. Sorry if that turns you off. He should be in prison. And no, I'm not a dem.
one last word on that...repub or dem, we as Americans should all be outraged that so many seem to think that a legitimate part of the political process is preventing people from voting. At our core, if we are not a democracy (actually, a democratic republic), what are we? Anyone who tampers with the votes or tries to suppress voting should go to prison for a very long time, dem or repub. This really is a blow at the very heart of our country and is tantamount to treason, as it is essentially an overthrow of legitimate govt. What befuddles me is why bush supporters seem okay with this because it benefited their side. Are they unaware that if they can do it, so can the other side? Soon, there is no democracy. Is that really what they/we want?
Thomas ~ I absolutely agree.
@JH The left has a slogan "if you don't get your way whine" so get ready there is going to be a flood.
It is going to take many more years for the United States to fully recover from the damages done by George "W"orst President in History Bush.
.
And we may never fully recover from the totalitarian state/"homeland security" bastardization of our precious constitutional rights that the war criminals bush/cheney set in motion.
.
bush/cheney are a permanent blemish on the proud history of our nation , and it pains me deeply that the meat-heads of this country elected those criminals TWICE!
Dadoftim, thank you for the factual summary. Another point that libs forget is that Gore, not Bush got the Supreme Court involved. I find it curious that those that scream about the Supreme Court "giving" the election to Bush conveniently forget it was Gore that took the case to the supreme court. The November 2001 announcement stating that after many objective recounts by credible news organizations Bush had the most votes was buried on page 17 of most papers. It was post 9-11 and time to move on. But you can bet had the tables been turned, it would have been page 1 news for days.
Thomas Blue, none of your posts make any sense. In 2004, Kerry lost Ohio by 80,000 votes. That is a huge number and would never have been turned over on a recount.
Thomas Blue you irrationally claim that Bush was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of lives. Where is your proof? That's right, there isn't any.
Thomas Blue, the stagflation of Jimmy Carter that Reagan cured was far worse than the economy of 2008. I lived through the 1970s and it was terrible. Reagan fixed Carter's mess by this time in his tenure. He cleaned up the messes from LBJ through Nixon, Ford and Carter. He didn't complain, he just got things done. Contrast Reagan with Obama. The first term is nearly over. Obama has made a bad situation much worse and still blames everyone but himself. If you are not smart enough to realize your policies are not working, you will never change them.
Bush was not my favorite president, but I sure glad he was at the helm and not Al Gore or John Kerry. He spent too much, don't like Medicare Part D, his farm bills and his highway bills. Did not like the bailouts of the car companies or the banks, although experts on both sides of the aisle claim the bank bailouts were necessary to save the system. His tax cuts turned around the post 9-11 economy. His quick actions on national security have kept us safe for all these years. Please note Obama has kept the national security apparatus nearly identical to the system installed by Bush. Please note we are leaving Iraq under the timetable established by Bush. Please note that Obama has kept the Bush tax cuts, because even democrats are smart enough to know they work.
Still waiting after 3.5 years for Obama's great economic ideas.
Hope all 3 presidents have a nice day.
@ Gary 420
Hey Gary, where the hell were you for the last 10 years as the media covered the immoral, illegal war in Iraq that Bush initiated based on pure lies?
Or is it just that the half a million citizens of Iraq who were killed do not count in your book because they are only Iraqis ?
One gets the impression you are a bit embarrassed having voted of that criminal.
@Gary420
Really????
Got the market corned on naivety yet Gary ??
Please note we are leaving Iraq only because we are being kicked out.
Iraq REFUSED to grant the united States further immunity, and THAT is why we are leaving Iraq.
I am PROUD as hell that I voted for Bush twice. And after the past 3 1/2 years am even more proud of it. Now its time to put this country back on the right track and vote out the biggest mistake in American history.
IF ONLY...politics could be enacted the way the two Presidents behaved at the ceremonial unveiling today.
Jason I totally agree with you and I did the same. The thought of anyone voting for a convict (John Edwards) for vice president or president is like voting for Nixon all over again.
Thomas,
Read my lips please:
We don't care about it anymore!
Why should we spent our energy on something already with water down the bridge. I salute both Gore and Kerry for not trying to make a mess out of elections. There are more to the good for the country than any individual being elected to the office. Both men understood that and I respect them for it.
TO: Thomas Blue who wrote:
You read my mind.
Obama/Biden 2012
TO: JH-479998 who wrote:
That's why the majority of the American People call Republicans "stupid," that's why it's too hard to trust Republicans, AND that's why Republicans are doomed to failure: because Republicans can't see their own past, can't admit to their own failures, and Republicans ALWAYS let the bad guys get away.
Obama/Biden 2012
Thanks AmericanGirl...Love your work.
Morningstar- I doesn't surprise me that you don't care. Most don't. That's how our govt got stolen from us- because most people, like you, don't care. And the solution is simple- just don't visit sites like this and don't read my posts. I don't care that you don't care. I will still speak my mind. Nor caring is what allowed bush to do what he did.
Gary 420...
The Irc says so.(Red Cross...another of those pesky lib orgs)
Gary 420, the inflation of the 1970s was brought under control under the leadership of a gentlemen named Paul Volcker, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, not Reagan. Clear your head, dude. Have another joint.
Close the Fed. Your facts are wrong. Even Barry says he is following the timetable established by Bush for the Iraq withdrawal. Not maintaining a military base in Iraq will go down to be judged as Obama's biggest foreign policy blunder. He did a terrible job of negotiating and leading ( it's because he had no experience doing it).
We still have military bases in Japan, Germany, Korea and dozens of other countries.
Nobody kicks us out. We leave when we are damn good and ready.
Close the Fed. More irrational hysteria from the ignorant. The Iraq war was not illegal or immoral, despite what the ponytail hippies at the Red Cross might opine. It was approved by Congress, including Hillary and John Kerry.
I think we should have gone in, killed all the bad guys , and packed up and left. The war was fine, the aftermath has been a complete waste.
Stupid yes, wasteful yes ( it is a government operation by the way). Illegal and immoral No.
Red Mike, you are partially correct. Volker made a big impact on inflation. His appointment was the only good thing Carter did in 4 years. Reagan is the guy that got the economy going.
Still waiting for Obama to do the same. Democrats: stop blaming, start fixing.
Romney 2012!
Good gosh,Gary, can you truly be this obtuse or poorly informed? Have you ever heard of PNAC? Richard Clarke? Paul O'Neill? Richard Clarke is a highly regarded NSA advisor who served under every president since Reagan, bi-partisan. He said, with no one disputing it, that in the very first meeting with Rice and a few others-sans Bush- that as they were discussing things, Iraq among them, Boy George popped his head in to say hi and said something like "what are you guys discussing?".
Rice responded,"Saddam"
Bush responded," fu*k Saddam". He also indicated that it was his intention to attack Saddam even before 9-11. PNAC had their roots in the mid-90s and was a who's who of Neocons;Cheney,Feith,Woolfowitz, Quayle, most of bush's inner circle. BTW, this is all public record as they had a web page announcing their intentions, assuming that all Americans would jump up and yell "Seig Heil!". They proposed taking over the middle east oil fields to insure that we had cheap gas well into the foreseeable future. Their plan was to prevent any other country from rising to enough power and prominence to challenge the US in leadership or even to be called a "superpower". But they also reached the conclusion that the American people would never support such an action unless an overt act against us, probably even on American soil, were to be perpetrated. In this event, they theorized, our govt could get the green light to go do whatever we wanted. The desire to seize the oil fields was really the main motivation to invade Iraq. And please don't take my word for it. Crack a book and read about PNAC (Project for a New American Century). BTW, only a few years after this master plan, this same group was in the White House and a few months after they took power, their wet dream happened on 9-11. Coincidence? Maybe. It certainly was fortuitous for their plans though. THIS IS THE MAIN REASON THAT WE WOULD NEVER GO IN, TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS, AND THEN JUST LEAVE. THIS IS ALSO WHY BUSH HAD NO EXIT STRATEGY. HE HAD NO INTENTION OF EXITING.
If you want to discuss such things, you really should read and try to understand them first and THEN form your opinions.
It was nice to see a real President and a proper First Lady in our White House. Throw that other trash out, please.
Yeah, send them to Kenya with their illegal bag of family garbage. They fit there just fine.
Departments
Election Issues
New court filing reveals how the 2004 Ohio presidential election was
hacked
by Bob Fitrakis
July 20, 2011
A new filing in the
King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell case includes a copy of the Ohio Secretary
of State election production system configuration that was in use in Ohio's 2004
presidential election when there was a sudden and unexpected shift in votes for
George W. Bush.
The filing also includes the revealing deposition of the
late Michael Connell. Connell served as the IT guru for the Bush family and Karl
Rove. Connell ran the private IT firm GovTech that created the controversial
system that transferred Ohio's vote count late on election night 2004 to a
partisan Republican server site in Chattanooga, Tennessee owned by SmarTech.
That is when the vote shift happened, not predicted by the exit polls, that led
to Bush's unexpected victory. Connell died a month and a half after giving this
deposition in a suspicious small plane crash.
"Even now, hardly a day goes by when Obama's team does not blame Bush for a mess." Straight from the msnbc story text! I never thought msnbc would bad mouth their favorite person in the world! Lmao! Have a great day you silly liberals!
It's already good. You came by to slum with us rightie.
For the record my comments are not directed at any poster PERSONALLY. Only to their comments or ideas, such as they may be.
That might be cause you never think, you only blindly accept talking points and opinions as facts.
Yankee Boy
Way to go covering your rear end. I got booted for a week for saying "you can't fix stupid".
Some people really don't think, they just spew horse's ass Mr. Ed's comments, right WTC?
TO: NPCDan who wrote:
Well, it's true.
Uhhhh, my apologies wethecorporations! Not all of us were blessed with what must be an incredible sense of self importance such as yourself! I'll try harder in the future! Hopefully I'll be able to scrap the mud off of my knuckles, you know, from dragging them through the mud, and what not. And yankeeBOY, thanks for the input, for what it's worth, which is pretty much nothing. Nothing personal, which I'm sure you understand with that huge brain of yours! Have a great day you silly liberals!
To "americangirl", you, as well as msnbc are completely right! Oh yeah, the job numbers came out today, and it looks pretty pathetic. Dang that Bush! Oh wait, he left office over three years ago, but I'm pretty sure it's his fault anyway...LMAO!!!
W. was a big spending wanna be democrat. But now he even looks good compared to BO.
Your memory is both short and selective.
For the record my comments are not directed at any poster PERSONALLY. Only to their comments or ideas, such as they may be.
That is soooooo funny you say that now, the compassionate conservative was really RINO, too funny. Sorry but you guys elected him twice, you own him and his policies.
And no, losing 800,000 jobs a MONTH, cutting taxes so the richest get richer while starting two wars of choice still sucks, no matter how moderate Obama is.
Bush will go down as the only president to start two wars, increase the deficit and reduce income taxes all at the same time.
Fiscal incompetency like this you can't make up.
Bush had that so-called 'business experience' that the Romnster keeps telling us makes him better able to fix the economy. Hell it sure worked for Bush. <sarcasm>
Correction: Bush started one war. (Iraq) The first (Afghanistan) was thrust upon us.
You people forget the acts that Clinton did to set the stage for this country to fall while bush was in office and how the democrats fought to expand those failed policies. I don't think it would have made a difference who won that election we were already heading down the wrong path, we still are and we will continue. some times I wish Gore would have won so we could blame him instead of Bush and you lefties would stop your constant whining.
If Gore would have won the WTC would have still been bombed, the invasion of Iraq would still have happened the Dems pushed just as hard as the Repubs on that issue if you can remember that far back, Afghanistan would have still been invaded and we would still be wondering what to do about Iran. on the home front we would be paying $10.00 a gallon for gas and it would be rationed, electricity would also be rationed because he would have taken out hydro, coal and nuclear plants with his environmental issues, we would not have half the food on the shelves that we have today, the rate of inflation would be three times what it is and he probably would have retired on his very own aircraft carrier. the man is a hypocrite, you would be hurting three times more than you are now, he would have forced all industriesout of the US. shut down all mining, there would be no access to the forest except by government run busing that means no camping or hiking no fishing or hunting unless its designated by the government, people would all be forced to live in cities and the country would be a wilderness park for the rich only. the real problem with the world is overpopulation so stop whining and stop contributing to the problem. always remember you are part of the problem.
It would not have mattered if Gore had won. The liberals are not exactly the brightest bulbs burning. They would just twist history and blame everyone else, to accommodate their warped views and show their ignorance, until something else came along.
I have to agree with you.
Mark Thomas - Great Scott, you're RIGHT! Bush will go down as the only president to start two wars, increase the deficit and reduce income taxes all at the same time!
Except for... President Lyndon B Johnson.
Whom *also* gave us a massive deficit, didn't raise taxes, a new war in Viet Nam and another in the Domenican Republic.
TO: Uh... No who wrote:
Bush started both wars, he was commander in chief and he did order our soldiers onto the battlefield BOTH in Afghanistan AND that Lie Called the War in Iraq.
Republicans have no trouble denying that the sky is blue.
Obama/Biden 2012
Guess genocide in Iraq concerns you not,
.
American Girl - So... FDR started World War 2? Wilson started World War 1? Wow... you Democrats aren't just war-mongers, you're WORLD WAR mongers!
Cthulhu 2012. Why vote for the lesser evil?
This is like Hoover or Nixon on a drive by. The Repukes are well known for their general incompetence, it's generational. Can't this old Texas drunk just "fade away?"
For the record my comments are not directed at any poster PERSONALLY. Only to their comments or ideas, such as they may be.
You can't call people Repukes, claim their incompetence is generational and label someone a drunk then turn around and disclaim that your comments are not PERSONAL. Lying hypocrite
Let's try a little reading comprehension, shall we? IT SAYS, "not to any POSTER..." You're so busy being outraged at having to face the truth about the repukes and tea pots you couldn't even get it right. Vote Democrat. Your comment, on the other hand, IS clearly directed at me PERSONALLY.
For the record my comments are not directed at any poster PERSONALLY. Only to their comments or ideas, such as they may be.
Yankee,
I'm afraid a disclaimer doesn't change the truth. If your comments are insulting before the disclaimer they are still insulting after the disclaimer. There is something to be said for civil discourse regardless of party and words like Repukes and Democraps don't help anyone make a point.
This reminds me of Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby... WIth all due respect Mr. Dennit, you're an as*hole"... But I said with all due respect! That means I can say what I want!" (paraphrasing).
TO: Bill Deacon who wrote:
Take it however you wanna take it, that's your right.
Just don't try to deny any American their Constitutional right to freedom of speech.
If you don't like Yankee, you have the option of turning on the "ignore" button and you won't be able to see Yankee's comments anymore.
Personally, I agree with most everything Yankee says, I enjoying reading Yankee's comments. Yours, not so much.
Obama/Biden 2012
Obama doesn't need to say a word, he just needs to trot Bush out in front of the country. Bush's record stands all on its own. Most sane americans remember exactly what the Bush administration did and was responsible for. Seeing the former president is a good reminder of what will happen if Mitt is elected.
EXACTLY.
Sadly terriels, while most SANE Americans will remember, many seem to have very short memories.
You guy's are so blind concerning Obama. He has put us further in debt in 3.5 years than Bush did in 8. Obama also went against his campaign promises to get rid of the Patriot act and he signed the NDAA and has signed a mandate giving him the power to declare Martial law at his on discretion. He is going to try and sign the "Small Arms agreement" with the UN over the weekend of hte july 4th weekend and has Hiliary telling the UN it will happen and Both want to sign the Lost Sea Treaty. You might want to check into that before you vote for this current Marxist we have in office. Mitt?Condi 2012.
TO: Scot-4891724 who wrote:
Not at all.
Not only do we see, but we understand as well.
Republicans, on the other hand, not so much.
Obama/Biden 2012
I am not blind, I totally agree with you and completely agree that Obama is WAY too moderate and continues way too many republican policies.
Fuzzy?????????????
Does that refer to your memory?
Since you seem to have forgotten, I will remind you that we lost over a million jobs under Boy George's last two months. BACK to work???? Not very likely under Bush II. The idiot destroyed our economy.
Can only imagine what that look on President Obama means. Could be he's thinking, I can't wait to get this jerk out of our house, the house he really dirtied up . We just are getting this cleaned up and this idiot returns. It's kind of like a cancer returning after it was declared -cured.
I was thinking the same of Bush..."OK I have to act civil to this A-hole that blames me for all MY mistakes and HIS too!"
Well it's an exclusive club and good luck to Bush in the future. At least they can have enough class to recognize the traditon.
I think Bush was incompetent man, but not nasty like Cheney , that man would eat his young.
And can somone tell me why Romney isn't stomping all over Obama in the polls??? The economy sucks, Romney is a supposed big business guy right? that could save us. It doesn't look good.
The reason the polls are statistically even is that the country is basically divided into two groups. The producers versus the takers. The republicans want to ease conditions for the producers, hoping to foster more production. The democrats promise to exact benefits from the producers and give them to the takers. The election is about the balance of power in the country between these two groups.
Wow, are you wrong.... The "producers" would be those that actually make the product that work every day and then go home and drive demand for more products. The "takers" are the Republican's like Romney that run equity firms that close companies and steal their pensions for profit then stick the tax payers with the cleanup and unemployment.
People don't pay for CEO's when they buy, they pay for product. The idea that CEO's and owners should make 1000+ times more than their workers and through some miracle of them having money they "create jobs" is what is ruining the country.
That's why this idiocy of giving tax cuts to the rich does not work. If you have a workforce that cannot afford to purchase the goods they produce you have no demand. So giving tax cuts to encourage the rich to hire more people is beyond stupid. Owners and CEOs will hire more people when the demand justifies it and NOT before.
And for those not aware of how true markets work, to increase demand, workers must have a living wage so they can purchase. Look up Henry Ford and you'll realize how far away from his ideals (which worked) we have traveled.
This election is about a replay of the trickle down theory (which if it actually worked we'd be swimming in jobs when Bush left) and one that hopefully encourages companies to stop screwing over workers or sending jobs over seas.
KWL3 - If you're a baseball fan, I think you'll get this reference: the season doesn't start until after the All Star Game.
(For those whom aren't: the "real" baseball season doesn't start until mid-July. This is all just a warm up...)
Maybe Romney would poll better if he gave the voting public some concrete reasons to vote for him. All I'm seeing so far is empty platitudes, a lot of pandering to whoever the current audience is, and contrarianism (I'm against whatever my opponent is for), mostly without much logical reasoning given to explain why. Even more glaring is what I'm not seeing: leadership, accountability, foreign policy acumen, capacity for bipartisan action... the list goes on.
C'mon, Mitt. You gotta prove to me why you're better before I can believe that Obama really is worse.
What's really scary is that Romney is nothing more than Bush redux, without as much foreign policy knowledge.
From there Dubya will be spirited off to Hague for his war crimes trial....
Will Cheney be in the portrait pulling the marionette's strings?
Bush= Loser
I remember the classless boos of many in the audience when President Bush was leaving office at Obama's inauguration, my shock further exacerbated by Obama's silence.
American troops are still in the Middle East fighting and this administration has sent more troops to Libya and Africa. As for debt...
Welcoming back former Presidents of the people's house, along with family and friends, for the occasion of the customary portrait unveiling,
Respect and class
Respect and class
When you take a job, it's all on you now and the ability of owning-up to your record.
Obama is perfectly accurate in saying his administration didn't cause the huge problems he was charged with fixing. That's just obvious.
Yeah it is his job now, but it's not only his job but Congress' as well and that's where our government fell down on the job.
Bush II was a flat out bad president. He wasnt smart enough for the job and it showed. Plus, its hard to get anything done with the party of NO running the house.
Government doing nothing is better then what the government has done for the last 3.5 years.
One can only hope the portrait is a wanted poster, wanted for lying us into Iraq, lying about how giving Millionairs and Billionairs more tax breaks creates jobs, if one researches the facts they will see when the Shrub left office we were bleeding more then 700,00 jobs a month, lying about torture and the list goes on, Bush and Cheney should be behind bars not honored as Patriots.
Yup, those Repubs and Dems sure hate each other! Wake up you fools.
The way this office works is that you inherit the good and the bad from your predecessors. You know that when you run for the presidency. Once you take the oath, it's all yours. You have run saying you're either going to change things for the better or stay the course. Blaming anything that happened in the past after you take the oath shows an incredible lack of character. Especially after you have been in office over 3 years. All it does is shine a spotlight on your own shortcomings. Enough already. By the way, this is true in life in general. It's way too easy to blame others when things aren't going the way you want them to.
What a shameful day. to have to "honor" the man who nearly destroyed this country.
He was NEVER legitemately elected, he deserves no honor whatsoever.
portrait or booking/mugshot
Let me do it for you President Bush. The difference between Bush and Obama is one has class and the other does not.
One makes no excuses and the other makes many.
One likes to hang out with men who blew things up because they were ordered to do so the other hangs out with men who like to blow up domestic public buildings with the possibility of maiming or killing fellow Americans.
One served two terms and the other will serve one term.
You forgot, one likes to start wars based on lies and which casued the death of 4,000 US citizens and the incapacity of tens of thousands more and borrowed $2t from the Chinese to do so, the same one who couldn't even serve out the cushy national guard job his father stole for him.
One condones torture in violation of signed treaties.
One was in office when the worst of times in almost 100 years visited us and one worked tirelessly to dig ous out of that hole.
Mark bag it you dunce. Iraq had the backing of all your Dems in Congress who had access to the same intelligence Bush used.
What you dum-dum liberals don't get is Saddam is the one who lied about having weapons of mass destruction, not Bush. He wanted the world, and especially Iran who he thought would attack him at some point, to think he had them. Sadaam was scared shiatless over Iran so he fostered the belief he had them.
Your man Obama would never have been able to brag about neutralizing Bin Laden if it weren't for waterboarding. So your argument there is moot, too. Ask Obama if given the choice no Bin Laden or find Bin Laden and your argument against is toast.
Try again, Mark. Read more and get back to us instead of repeating MSLSD TV talking points from the Ed Show.
bill clinton started 'extraordinary rendition' to third party countries that had no laws against torture.
clinton started this in 1997
...just fyi mark.
hi mark, how you been ?
rebel, let's not re-write history. Democrats authorized, not directed, Bush to wage wars based on specious intelligence. They aslo did it based on their assumption Bush had a plan to wage war and to occupy the country, neither of which was true. They also believed him when he said it would last "6 weeks, 6 months at most" and wouldn't cost a dime. All lies. Democrats are guilty of believing Bush, as are republicans, but only Bush started the war, no one else.
Keck, no complaints, how about you?
mark, good.....work is slow (construction) but we are hoping things pick up this summer.
now...as to your assessment that "bush lied". before bush was ever elected the democrats had it in for sadaam in 1998, 'operation desert fox' .......the regime change act of 1998.....sanctions from 1993-2000 that killed 1 million iraqis.
....bush ended sadaam....no other american president will ever have to "contain" sadaam. the war was planned poorly, i will not argue that....i cant. but it was to end the sadaam regime which we have been fighting, containing since 1990.
...even joe biden said that "the liberation of iraq may be one of our greatest achievements".
no one "lied"......the entire world...the ones that said that sadaam had wmds, got it wrong.
keck, everyone wanted Saddam out of power. But the facts, evenas we knwe them at the time, were that he was no more a risk to the US or its allies than many other countries, and certainly not to the extent that we needed to invade the country. Most especially when it's pretty obvious now that his administration had zero clue on how to prosecute the war or establish the peace. SO many things they said before the war, "we'll be greated as liberators" and it won't cost a dime and it would take 6 months at the most clearly demonstrate they started a fight for which they were totaly unprepared.
It takes someone with judgement to avoid that kind of trap. Every presidident before Bush had that judgement. Bush I was the most prescient in not invading Iraq even when after the Kuwait war he had all the troops, material and coalition on site to do so. The Bush administration seemed to made up of cowboys, not diplomats or world leaders with an understanding of the bigger picture.
well, you may be right about the 'cowboy' thing mark. but i still feel it was the right thing to do....we needed to send a big message to the islamic world that when you hit america.....america will hit you back, and then some.
we tried diplomacy with sadaam during the clinton years....and sadaam was not going to quit harassing our allies kuwait and the saudis.
the world now knows that you cant fool with america and get away with it....there will be action and regime change if you do threaten america.
i dont see why some on the far left want bush tried for treason...other than the fact that they hate bush.
now americas policy is to support the peoples ruled by dictators....egypt, libya, iraq, ...and now syria...and possibly iran.
the syrians are begging for americans to help them from being slaughtered....it's sad, and i think we will help the syrian people soon.
well, bush welcomed clinton back to the white house for the same event....but bush never really blamed clinton personally the way obama has blamed bush personally.
....i miss george bush.
...and maybe one day i will miss obama.
What exactly would Bush have blamed Clinton for?? Giving him a huge surplus he could then turn around and squander? Having a sustainable budget, lowering government to a size it hadn't been in years, or the lowest unemployment rate in recent history?
Which of these terrible items could he have possibly blame Clinton for??!! </sarcasm>
beaker, bush never blamed bill clinton for not getting bin laden or 9/11.
bush never blamed clinton for repealing glass-stegal
bush never blamed clinton for a nuclear armed north korea
...and if i remember correctly...when bush was elected we were in a recession, yes ? ....
W. Bush, by far and away the worst President the United States of America has ever had.
It will be years before the damage he did is rectified, if ever.
The people that helped elect him to two devastating terms should be ashamed of themselves for voting for such a cur.
you think bush needs to be charged with treason ?
Bush/Cheney came in with an agenda and they made sure the information they received fit that agenda so as to justify it.
i think obama came in with an agenda too.
...dont all administrations have agendas ?
Bush entered office in 2001 with a recession, then the whammy of 9/11, and he then affected the Bush tax cuts which were causal to 54 straight months of economic expansion albeit mild expansion. But expansion nonetheless.
When did it end? When Dems took control of Congress in 2006. Coincidence? Not at all - they sent business straight to bear mode from bullish mode. Dems then further shirked their oversight responsibilities in the respective Banking Committee chairmanships of Rep. Barney Frank (D) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D) relative to the mortgage crash of Sept. 2008 - neither of these buffoons even saw it coming.
Rebel, there's a reason why no other president in our history cut income taxes during a time of war, and it's not difficult to understand why.
With regards to the democrat congress, can you point to even one bill they passed that caused a recession literally days after they were seated. It's really a silly argument when you look at the facts and use just a little bit of objective reasoning.
You are absolutely right that Frank was one of the biggest screw-ups in congrsssional history, but the real estate meltdown didn't casue the commercial credit industry meltdown, which was far more a probelm for our economy than a bursting real estate bubble. For investment banks making investments far more riskt to themselves, and by dint of their size, to the US economy, we can thank deregualtion, a wholey republican initiative.
He cut taxes before the wars. I wasn't clear in that. Next.
Commercial credit was eradicated because all the banks were losing their asses on bogus mortgage instruments and had no cash. Bush to the rescue with TARP - most all of which has been repaid now.
He cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003., after he had made up his mind to invade Iraq and certanly well after he invaded Afghanistan.
And why, when declaring a war, wouldn't he have rallied his rich troops and said we have a war to fight, the least you can do, since you're certainly not going to fight or die in that war, is help finance it?
Commerical credit crisis would not have existed had they not been deregulated and allowed to invest their money like a losing gambler.
If people should be ashamed for voting for Bush, then I can only imagine what people should think about voting for an irresponsible, inexperienced, unacknowledged, untrustworthy, unpatriotic, buffoon as Obama! He should be tried for treason and hanged along with his co conspirators!
Obama has done nothing but continue Bush Policies. The rich still have their tax breaks, the deficit is still growing and at a pace that is starting to make even Bush look good, the trashing of the constitution that started with the Patriot Act has continued to get worse with NDAA and HR347. You people that trash Bush and praise Obama are hilarious, they are both in contention for the worst president ever...
I will say one thing only. Right after President Bush took office the 9/11 attacks happened. Right or Wrong this man took action, and for the next 8 years there were no more attacks on American Soil. We were safe, because President Bush said..Lets take the War to them (their soil), and keep it away from here. He did this and it worked.
Raddar, I can just as easily say I stood out on my front lawn with a shovel and becasue of that no attacks took place.
Attacking a country that had nothing to do with the 9-11 as a response to that attack is to most people pretty misdirected, bordering on stupid or worse. We could just as well attacked Tanzania and said that attack prvented any more terror attacks.
Wow, Raddar takes talking points STRAIGHT from Fox news....
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/fox-news-host-i-dont-remember-any-terrorist-attacks-on-bushs-watch/politics/2011/07/14/23697
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/24/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-terror-attacks-have-increased/
And really, AFTER 9/11 there were no attacks? Like 9/11 wasn't enough??
Bush was warned in a memo from Clinton... He should have paid more attention and done his job and we never would have had a 9/11!!
Seems to me that Bush is quite comfortable staying out of the limelight and respects the Presidency too much to throw pot shots at President Obama. He knows how tough it is. He believes it's beneath the dignity of the office.
Interesting that President Obama doesn't respond in kind. No matter - Nobody's with any sense at all is buying the IBF (It's Bush's Fault) anymore anyway.
Bush is a puke. Let's not forget the thousands that died in Iraq over lies.
well then, lets not forget the 1 million iraqis that clinton killed with sanctions in the 90s...
....apparently "over lies" ...right ? lol
TO: David-1787121 who wrote:
You'd be surprised how many Americans' memory remain in tact. People all around the world won't forget Bush either, AND neither Bush nor Cheney can go too far from American soil because they're wanted for war crimes in certain country's in the world.
We know Republicans are dying to forget and to rewrite history because George W. Bush was nothing short of a complete and total disaster for the Republican Party, and the rest of the world as well.
Republicans can lie and deny all they want, but the rest of the world is not likely to forget George W. Bush.
Obama/Biden 2012
The list of the worse Presidents will be th is
Obama (Amateur and biggest spender of all time)
Carter (Fool)
Wilson (turncoat)
Bush 2 (big spender)
Nixon (just plan foolish)
Speaking of big spenders...You forgot Reagan.
Carter was no leader but he didn't do any damage.
Obama took office under the worst conditions in 100 years, and arguably more, and he's done a pretty good job.
Nixon for all his foibles did accomplish some positive things but he certainly did some very bad stuff.
Bush II: complete, unmitigated disaster. No positives whatsoever. Nothing but negatives.
Reagan almost made the list of the worst, but he was lucky the cards fell his way.
Gee I thought after the bushes and cheney's and rove's and the rest of them after robbing America all moved to saudi arabia where all their friends are or maybe germany. Too bad..........
Bush gets credit for dividing this country between people who believe the truth and those who'd rather close their eyes and live in denial.
Obama/Biden 2012
I predict Obama will not be able to refrain from further excuse-making and Bush-blaming.
Obama is undoubtedly the most divisive and failed President in US history.
Motoricker - Apparently you were sleeping at the wheel during George W's 8 years - he reinvented McCarthyism and the current divided nation that you see today! Of course I'm sure that you'll call that excuse making and bush blaming - I prefer to call it the truth. My guess is that you'll still call it that even after the History books confirm otherwise.