The mainstream media treats all Presidents just the same: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. Honest, unbiased journalism, not tainted by their own personal views or influenced by the media outlets they work for. Not a single bit.
Oops...scratch that.
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Monday, May 4, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Surely There Will Be No Missing "O"'s
Remember eight years ago today when the outgoing Clinton administration left $15,000 worth of "damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks" to government property on their way out the White House door? Oh, those rascally Democrats.
At the time, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer played down the Clintonian shenanigans:
The bad thing is, many of these jokers will be returning.
But I'm sure President Obama will find all the "O"'s on his keyboards.
At the time, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer played down the Clintonian shenanigans:
"Whether things were done that were perhaps less gracious than should have been, it is not going to be what President Bush focuses on, nor will it be what his staff focuses on. Whatever may have been done, we are going to just put our heads down and look ahead,'' he said.
The bad thing is, many of these jokers will be returning.
But I'm sure President Obama will find all the "O"'s on his keyboards.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Obama's Not the First African-American Presidential Candidate
I had to shake my head when Aunt B over at Tiny Cat Pants wrote that she "cried like a baby" after voting for the Liberal Messiah. I'm sure for her it was a significant event to cast her ballot for an African-American candidate for president of the United States. She adds:
That's well and good, but it's actually not the first time that an African-American has run for the presidency. If she was registered to vote in 2000, it wasn't even the first time she had the opportunity to do so.
There are many people who have the misguided or uninformed notion that Obama is the first. Not so. I voted for an African-American candidate eight years before the Almighty Barry ever disgraced the national scene.
Amid a crowded field of candidates that included George W. Bush and John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary, I voted for Alan Keyes. It made no difference to me the color of his skin; what mattered was his position against the murder of unborn children, his Christian beliefs, and the conservative principles for which he stood.
It is significant that Obama is the first African-American to be nominated by a major political party for our nation's highest office. But it doesn't make him the right choice for our country.
So when Obama supporters make such a big deal about casting their vote for him because of his race, I have to say with pride I was eight years ahead of ya'll.
Listen, I don’t think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced cheese. I’m not even sure he’ll be a very good president. But I’m proud to be able to vote for him, and I’m proud to vote for him.
That's well and good, but it's actually not the first time that an African-American has run for the presidency. If she was registered to vote in 2000, it wasn't even the first time she had the opportunity to do so.
There are many people who have the misguided or uninformed notion that Obama is the first. Not so. I voted for an African-American candidate eight years before the Almighty Barry ever disgraced the national scene.
Amid a crowded field of candidates that included George W. Bush and John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary, I voted for Alan Keyes. It made no difference to me the color of his skin; what mattered was his position against the murder of unborn children, his Christian beliefs, and the conservative principles for which he stood.
It is significant that Obama is the first African-American to be nominated by a major political party for our nation's highest office. But it doesn't make him the right choice for our country.
So when Obama supporters make such a big deal about casting their vote for him because of his race, I have to say with pride I was eight years ahead of ya'll.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
"Senator Government": The Third McCain-Obama Debate
Here's my take on the third and final debate of the 2008 presidential election.
First, Bob Schieffer did a much better job as moderator than his two predecessors. There were questions asked that hadn't been addressed in the previous debates such as the candidates' stances on partial birth abortion. The format with the candidates sitting at a table close to one another made for a more interactive exchange between them.
John McCain did a much better job in this debate that in the previous two. He made eye contact with Obama and addressed him on several occasions instead of looking only toward the moderator, as he did in the first debate. He more capably challenged Obama on his policy proposals and his connections to Bill Ayers and ACORN. He made Joe Wurzelbacher (or "Joe the Plumber" has McCain called him) a household name and a symbol of what Obama's tax plan would do to small businesses. And he finally called Obama out for the incessant comparisions with President Bush in a very pointed and effective manner:
Granted, McCain is not an eloquent speaker. He probably talks like a lot of us would if we were on national television: his voice breaks and sometimes he looks stiff or uncomfortable. He's actually more like us than one so polished and refined as his high exaltedness, the great Liberal Messiah.
Obama was Obama: eloquent in speech but devoid of substance to back it up. Truly a man of too many words. He's cool, slick, and acts like it's all no big deal for him; in other words, he looks and acts like a politician. (Where's the change in that?) There were the extended "uh's" and a few sentences that started with "Look..." that are standard fare with Obama. If he was a college professor, he would put me to sleep. (That's right: for a time he was a college professor!) The man talks on and on and on. It takes a moderator or a well-placed "uh..." to interrupt him. He reminds me so much of Bill Clinton in this respect. Obama is in love with the sound of his own voice. Trouble is, it's the same tired rhetoric that never changes and the repetitive talking points over and over again: tax cuts for 95% of Americans, the failed economic policies of the last eight years, McCain is Bush, blah, blah, blah.
Did McCain win the debate? I would honestly have to say he held his own (as he did in the previous debates), but there was no decisive moment on either side that gave the other a resounding claim to victory. Of course most will say Obama won simply because McCain failed to deliver a knockout blow against him. On the other hand, Obama was on the defensive for most of the night and made none of his own either, but the pressure was more on McCain rather than Obama to land that punch. Because he didn't, I suppose Obama won the debate by default.
The one phrase that stands out from all three debates was when McCain inadvertedly gave us the newest yet most perfect title for the Liberal Messiah: "Senator Government." Nothing more fitting has been said to summarize the political philosophy of Barack Obama. Like any good liberal, he believe not only in government but a larger and more powerful government to solve all our country's woes.
Need socialized health care? Big government!
Need your personal wealth spread around? Big government!
Need something's hand in your wallet? Big government!
Need their other hand to hold the rest of your life? Big government!
McCain has a daunting task in the next 19 days making up ground in the polls among undecided voters. Many Democrats forget where Obama was just a little over a month ago; their overconfidence could very well backfire.
First, Bob Schieffer did a much better job as moderator than his two predecessors. There were questions asked that hadn't been addressed in the previous debates such as the candidates' stances on partial birth abortion. The format with the candidates sitting at a table close to one another made for a more interactive exchange between them.
John McCain did a much better job in this debate that in the previous two. He made eye contact with Obama and addressed him on several occasions instead of looking only toward the moderator, as he did in the first debate. He more capably challenged Obama on his policy proposals and his connections to Bill Ayers and ACORN. He made Joe Wurzelbacher (or "Joe the Plumber" has McCain called him) a household name and a symbol of what Obama's tax plan would do to small businesses. And he finally called Obama out for the incessant comparisions with President Bush in a very pointed and effective manner:
"Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you want to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."
Granted, McCain is not an eloquent speaker. He probably talks like a lot of us would if we were on national television: his voice breaks and sometimes he looks stiff or uncomfortable. He's actually more like us than one so polished and refined as his high exaltedness, the great Liberal Messiah.
Obama was Obama: eloquent in speech but devoid of substance to back it up. Truly a man of too many words. He's cool, slick, and acts like it's all no big deal for him; in other words, he looks and acts like a politician. (Where's the change in that?) There were the extended "uh's" and a few sentences that started with "Look..." that are standard fare with Obama. If he was a college professor, he would put me to sleep. (That's right: for a time he was a college professor!) The man talks on and on and on. It takes a moderator or a well-placed "uh..." to interrupt him. He reminds me so much of Bill Clinton in this respect. Obama is in love with the sound of his own voice. Trouble is, it's the same tired rhetoric that never changes and the repetitive talking points over and over again: tax cuts for 95% of Americans, the failed economic policies of the last eight years, McCain is Bush, blah, blah, blah.
Did McCain win the debate? I would honestly have to say he held his own (as he did in the previous debates), but there was no decisive moment on either side that gave the other a resounding claim to victory. Of course most will say Obama won simply because McCain failed to deliver a knockout blow against him. On the other hand, Obama was on the defensive for most of the night and made none of his own either, but the pressure was more on McCain rather than Obama to land that punch. Because he didn't, I suppose Obama won the debate by default.
The one phrase that stands out from all three debates was when McCain inadvertedly gave us the newest yet most perfect title for the Liberal Messiah: "Senator Government." Nothing more fitting has been said to summarize the political philosophy of Barack Obama. Like any good liberal, he believe not only in government but a larger and more powerful government to solve all our country's woes.
Need socialized health care? Big government!
Need your personal wealth spread around? Big government!
Need something's hand in your wallet? Big government!
Need their other hand to hold the rest of your life? Big government!
McCain has a daunting task in the next 19 days making up ground in the polls among undecided voters. Many Democrats forget where Obama was just a little over a month ago; their overconfidence could very well backfire.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Major League Baseball during the Bush Presidency
Here are the final regular season standings for the American and National Leagues during the presidency of George W. Bush (2001-09). The top 5 teams during his tenure were the New York Yankees (775-518); Boston Red Sox (740-555); St. Louis Cardinals (727-568); Oakland Athletics (724-571); and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (721-575). The top National League club was my favorite team, the Cards! (This list is courtesy of Society for American Baseball Research member Brad Sullivan.)
AMERICAN LEAGUE
East
New York Yankees 775-518 .599 --
Boston Red Sox 740-555 .571 36
Toronto Blue Jays 647-648 .4996 129
Baltimore Orioles 560-734 .433 215.5
Tampa Bay(D)Rays 541-753 .418 234.5
Central
Minnesota Twins 707-589 .546 --
Chicago White Sox 683-614 .527 24.5
Cleveland Indians 661-635 .510 46
Detroit Tigers 564-731 .436 142.5
Kansas City Royals 530-766 .409 177
West
Oakland Athletics 724-571 .559 --
Anaheim/LA Angels 721-575 .556 3.5
Seattle Mariners 661-635 .510 63.5
Texas Rangers 618-678 .477 106.5
NATIONAL LEAGUE
East
Atlanta Braves 711-583 .549 --
Philadelphia Phillies 692-603 .534 19.5
New York Mets 651-643 .503 60
Florida Marlins 645-650 .498 66.5
Montreal/Washington 585-710 .452 126.5
Central
St. Louis Cardinals 727-568 .561 --
Houston Astros 686-609 .530 41
Chicago Cubs 659-636 .509 68
Milwaukee Brewers 588-707 .4540 139
Cincinnati Reds 588-708 .4537 139.5
Pittsburgh Pirates 550-744 .425 176.5
West
Los Angeles Dodgers 681-615 .525 --
San Francisco Giants 670-623 .518 9.5
Arizona Diamondbacks 650-646 .502 31
San Diego Padres 618-679 .477 63.5
Colorado Rockies 595-702 .459 86.5
Friday, September 26, 2008
Democrats in Denial: Financial Crisis Began with Clinton
Democrats have a short attention span, especially when it comes to confessing their political sins and owning up to their blunders.
Conveniently, it never goes beyond George W. Bush's presidency. Everything bad has happened in the past seven-and-a-half years; anything good came about during the Clinton administration. It's pointless for them to look past 1993 because their party has such a terrible record at picking their presidential candidates the past 40 years: John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey. Their one "success" was Jimmy Carter, a one-term disaster who is considered below average among the presidents by scholars and historians and continues to be a national embarrassment as an "elder statesman." I suppose you can't blame Democrats for trying to be forward thinkers rather than look back at their track record of failures.
The current financial crisis is a good example, particularly the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac institutions. When it comes to the blame game, Democrats love to play as long as they don't have to look beyond the Bush administration. When Tennessee Conservative Watch looked back at where it all began, they found a New York Times article dated September 30, 1999 BB (Before Bush) in which the Clinton administration advocated the ease of credit requirements for home mortgages to people with "generally not good enough" credit. Granted, this was not one lone smoking gun in this mess, but it was certainly a contributing factor.
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
Fast forward nine years later and Bill Clinton rejects the insinuation by President Bush in his televised address on Wednesday that the economic problems developed "[f]or more than a decade." Yet he does concede in Clintonesque style that he could be partially to blame:
Do the Democrats acknowledge any blame at all--even a smidge? Of course not. And the Liberal Media accepts it as gospel and goes on blaming President Bush. At least Fox News has the gumption to show Congressional Democrats for what they really are and show that John McCain has been an advocate for regulatory reform.
Conveniently, it never goes beyond George W. Bush's presidency. Everything bad has happened in the past seven-and-a-half years; anything good came about during the Clinton administration. It's pointless for them to look past 1993 because their party has such a terrible record at picking their presidential candidates the past 40 years: John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey. Their one "success" was Jimmy Carter, a one-term disaster who is considered below average among the presidents by scholars and historians and continues to be a national embarrassment as an "elder statesman." I suppose you can't blame Democrats for trying to be forward thinkers rather than look back at their track record of failures.
The current financial crisis is a good example, particularly the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac institutions. When it comes to the blame game, Democrats love to play as long as they don't have to look beyond the Bush administration. When Tennessee Conservative Watch looked back at where it all began, they found a New York Times article dated September 30, 1999 BB (Before Bush) in which the Clinton administration advocated the ease of credit requirements for home mortgages to people with "generally not good enough" credit. Granted, this was not one lone smoking gun in this mess, but it was certainly a contributing factor.
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
Fast forward nine years later and Bill Clinton rejects the insinuation by President Bush in his televised address on Wednesday that the economic problems developed "[f]or more than a decade." Yet he does concede in Clintonesque style that he could be partially to blame:
[Clinton] also acknowledged that there was possible danger in his administration’s policy of pressing Fannie Mae, the mortgage company, to lower its credit standards for lower- and middle-income families seeking homes.
“I think, through the lens of this, it looks like that was true,” Clinton said. “But let's go back to where we were at the time. At the time, they had lots of money, were making lots of money, and I thought too much of the money was being given out in value to the shareholders and compensation to the executives. And, at the time, we had a balanced budget and a surplus and a rapidly growing economy in other areas.”
Regardless whether there was a balanced budget and a surplus at the time or not, pushing banks and financial institutions to accept risky mortgages is just bad business.Do the Democrats acknowledge any blame at all--even a smidge? Of course not. And the Liberal Media accepts it as gospel and goes on blaming President Bush. At least Fox News has the gumption to show Congressional Democrats for what they really are and show that John McCain has been an advocate for regulatory reform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)