Audience Participation Weekend
Would you rather be George W. Bush walking into the White House in January 2001 not knowing what the greatest challenge of his presidency was going to be or Barack H. Obama walking into the White House in January 2009 already knowing what awaits?
I’d rather be Bush.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:19 am
I’d rather be Bush, too. For every reason you can imagine, including the one in your scenario.
Obama started this campaign farce back when things were going just fine. The economy was humming along, the newly elected Democratic congress hadn’t done too much damage yet, and Russia hadn’t decided to get the old gang back together. He figured, based on that information, that being President would be a cake walk.
Unfortunately, Reality has stepped in a bitch slapped The One right across his smug face.
Due to the aformentioned bitch slap, he’s completely out of his league now, so he has to rely on the Clintons and their cronies to pull his lame ass out of the fire. Which in turn infuriates the 52′s who were counting on his “hope and change” to get some Socialist policies enacted. His divisive rhetoric turned off all of us 48′s, so there’s not much unity to be had either.
Good luck with all that, assclown!
Oh, the schadenfreude … it is sweet…..
November 24th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Certainly Bush had a better situation going in. Obama will have emergency problems crop up as well – there’s always a lot of trouble brewing in foreign affairs. He’s got a crap sandwich, no doubt. But I think in 2012 voters will take that into account, provided he doesn’t make things worse.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“The economy was humming along, the newly elected Democratic congress hadn’t done too much damage yet . . .”
Ya gotta love the Republican spin machine. I get it, the economic crisis is because it was a Democratic congress. Hahahahahahaha.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Oh, and Bush. His problems were about 80 percent of his own making.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Pearatty,
Gotta love it when Dems deny the truth. You do know that it was a Dem president that got the legislation through the Dem congress to force companies like Citibank to give loans to those who could not afford them right? You do know Obama was legal counsel for ACORN when they sued Citibank because Citibank would not give loans to people when they knew they could not pay them back. The people defaulted on the loans, the government is now bailing them out. Those dang Republicans ruin everything don’t they?!?!?!
November 24th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Kevin:
I’ve really been wanting to ask for a while, since before the election, actually: Aren’t you (by which I mean Republicans) just embarrassed at this point? Aren’t you ashamed of yourselves yet?
You ran away from Bush like rats from a sinking ship in 2008, but nothing, nothing, that has happened in the last four years, from the quagmire in Iraq, to an economy failed due to lack of regulatory oversight, to a federal governement awash in cronyism and incompetence, wasn’t already reported or predicted by 2004. But still you rallied to give us another 4 years of Bush and his regime.
What makes you (again, Republicans) think you have any credibilty to suggest a path for this country at this point?
Shouldn’t this be a time for you to be figuring out where your party has gone wrong, lost its way? And I don’t mean lost its way as in failing to get your candidate elected, but lost its way as in failing to stand for anything other than no taxes and no abortions.
Just wondering.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Pearatty, you’re overstating your case quite a bit here. For one thing, no matter how badly the Democrats wish it was Iraq has never been a “quagmire”. By historical standards, in fact, it’s a smashing success. The Democrats and the media (eh, but I repeat myself) branded the Iraq war a quagmire when our troops stopped for gas on the third day. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. People who think Iraq is a “quagmire” simply have no grounding in history. You could try here if you wanted to know what is actually going on away from the green zone balconies.
As far as the financial crisis goes, though the response to the problem has been abysmal, the roots of this crisis go back to the ’70s, when the government got the bright idea of forcing banks to lend money to people who couldn’t pay it back. Bush actually proposed regulations that would have kept Fannie Mae solvent in 2004, but said regulations were killed in committee by Chris Dodd, Democrat. You know, the same guy who got “VIP” loans from Countrywide? is that what you meant by “cronyism”?
Besides, the choice in 2004 wasn’t a yes/no decision on Bush, it was between Bush and the Democratic nominee,. The Democrats put up John Kerry. Who could be embarrassed for not voting that guy in? Are you embarrassed for nominating him? I mean, the guy has been in the Senate since God was a kid and he’s authored, like, three bills. I would have thought if the Democrats really didn’t like Bush they would have nominated, you know, someone better.
Does that answer your question?
November 25th, 2008 at 12:08 am
“Does that answer your question?”
Nope.
I will just have to be embarrased for you, I guess.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Let me spell it out then. No, Republicans aren’t embarrassed. It’s too bad Democrats couldn’t field someone with a room temperature IQ in 2004.