Archive for the ‘Blame Bush’ Category

When the initial Bush tax cuts were proposed the making of the tax cuts temporary was a compromise that democrats and liberal republicans managed to forge to keep their constituents happy. If they could not stop the Bush Tax Cuts they could at least make them expire thus giving some consolation to their progressive followers.

Although Bush over and over suggested the Tax cuts be made permanent he could not manage to find the votes.

Now we come to 2010. The economy is bad and unemployment is rampant and now Democrats who were so proud to keep the Bush tax rates from becoming permanent find themselves trapped once again!

Once again the left is screaming “tax cuts for the rich” and their supporters are screaming for them not to cave in figuring that even after the republicans take control in a month they will not have the votes to get it passed.

Meanwhile Republicans are pushing to make the Bush rates permanent.

And so the white house and their advisers are leaning toward compromise, another extension, maybe two years of the Bush Tax Cuts. And thus the trap is set again.

The smart thing for the administration would be to pass the cuts NOW and make them permanent for several reasons.

1.  This will take the issue off the table, every time they simply extend the “Bush tax cuts” it sets up democrats in an election years to defend increasing taxes on business. (You know the folks who actually hire people.)

2.   As long as they are not permanent they remain the “Bush Tax Cuts”. Once they are permanent then they just become the US tax rates. Keeping them temporary keeps them associated with republicans and George W. Bush.

3.   If a democratic congress passes the tax cuts, then they not the republicans will get (and actually deserve) credit for the positive economic results. If it is passed once republicans are in power, republicans will get (and deserve) the credit for the results.

4.  If they are not passed and the economy gets worse (as the result of the tax hike) Republicans can directly blame democrats. Great issue for 2012.

5.   And finally if this is done NOW, then democrats have two years to placate their base. It will be over and done with.

Making the tax rates permanent would be not only the right thing but also the smart thing. That’s why I’m positive the democrats will fall right into the trap and simply vote for an extension at best. Given the chance to do the right or smart thing, the Democrats can be counted on to miss the boat.

I wonder if George W. saw all of this coming years ago and actually intended to set this trap for the left?

Update:
Crooks and Liars thinks the democrats have the GOP right where they want them. I’m telling you it’s just too easy. How do we ever lose elections to those guys?

Back in Aug of 2009 I ran this chart of Vietnam vets against the war on Google news in a story of how Vietnam vets against the war decided not to back up Cindy Sheehan’s protest against the Obama administration:

Funny how they dropped off the radar in Jan of 2009.

I was reminded of that story when I saw this:

Several factors — war fatigue; a deep, lingering recession; and the presence of a Democratic president they helped elect — have drained the energy from organizations that led the fight against the Iraq war. Some of the most influential anti-war activist groups that once summoned half a million people to march against the Iraq war and the policies of former President George W. Bush are straining to raise the money and attention to fight what they see as Obama’s military entrenchment in Afghanistan.
“We don’t have a very vibrant anti-war movement anymore,” lamented Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Codepink, one of the anti-war movement’s most visible organizations. emphasis mine

Politico seems to be confused by this. If they had been paying attention a year ago they would not be so surprised. Have they given the anti war much attention in print themselves? Or perhaps they might remember this famous line:

If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition’s arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation.

George Bush is no longer president, those who oppose him politically who provided finances and manpower and media coverage in an attempt to bring him down will absolutely not do the same with Barack Obama.

BTW I figured I’d update my check of Vietnam Vets against the war on Google News since last year.

Vietnam vets against the war updated graph

A blip, we have a blip! Is it a press release, is it a march, is it a national event, no? What can that one blip be?

This is defiantly NOT the time to get out of politics. Some people feel threatened by the Tea Party movement. While I don’t subscribe too many of their viewpoints, I welcome them to the political fray. Their movement is probably the best thing to happen in politics since the Vietnam Vets against the War staged a million person demonstration in West Potomac Park in March of 1973.

One mention in a side article on the tea party in February. That’s it?

Don’t despair Cindy, Medina, it takes time to create true believers. Come November 2012 I’m sure many on the left who decided that American Military power is not something to protest will suddenly come around. Rest assured that you will have all the support and manpower George Soros and the Democratic party can buy.

If you want to make a list George W. Bush’s friend and allies in the media it likely doesn’t include Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson or Peter Beinart. Yet the three of them seeing their hero Barack Obama floundering over the Ground Zero Mosque and the democrats on the defensive over their support of it expect George W. Bush to save the day:

There’s a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama’s waffling on the issue, they’re calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America’s relationship with Islam.

President Obama has spent most of his term in office bashing George W Bush and blaming him for everything except the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. The democratic strategy for 2010 has been blame Bush, now they are waiting for him to save them.

President Bush has politely refrained from critique of the current administration, I can’t see him bailing out these people who will not show any gratitude for it, even if he was so inclined. Does that mean that they will blame Bush for any political problem caused by Obama’s statements? Well DUH!

Memeorandum thread here.

Update: Corrected some spelling mistakes

Update 2: I absolutely love Doug Powers headline at Michelle Malkin’s site

Ground Zero Mosque Supporters Beg Greedy, Lying, Human Rights Violating War Criminal to Join Their Crusade



Update 3:
I could copy and paste these headlines all day:

To save Obama, Left cries out for … George W. Bush?

…to save author Gary Wills and people like him from embarrassment when they travel in Europe.

The author actually said on Morning Joe today this was the good thing about replacing George Bush with Barack Obama and the crew nodded in agreement.

I’m sure Mr. Willis is a smart man and his book on the “National Security State” might be pretty good, but I have a piece of advice for him. If you find people wanting to pity or laugh at you when you travel, you need to do one thing.

MAN UP!

If a grown man can’t deal with what people abroad feel about him or his country then he has a lot more to worry about than who is president.