Among the words the Left loves to use, and use, and use is the word “quagmire”. As in Vietnam was a “quagmire” Iraq will be a “quagmire”, it seems the Left loves them some quagmires, unless it is a quagmire involving President Obama. Stacy McCain has more on Obamamire, or maybe quagcare is more suiting
Attempts by the White House and liberal media to spin their way out of this mess are failing almost as badly as ObamaCare itself.
The simple facts are against them, and the elaborate rationalizations cannot hide the truth. A quick sample of headlines today:
Health Consumers Finding Out
They Were Sold a Lemon
– Megan McArdle, Bloomberg
I had great cancer doctors and
health insurance. My plan was cancelled.
Now I worry how long I’ll live.
– Edie Littlefield Sundby, Wall Street Journal
Will Insularity, Incompetence,
and Lies Doom Obamacare?
– Ron Fournier, National Journal
Feinstein: Hey, you could have kept your
plan … until we enacted ObamaCare
– Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
What this resembles, quite frankly, is the way George W. Bush’s popularity tumbled in his second term after the insurgency in Iraq started inflicting significant casualties on U.S. troops with no apparent end in sight. Bush was re-elected in 2004 because voters believed (by a relatively narrow majority) that we should “stay the course” in Iraq, and that the insurgency was being defeated. But as 2005 gave way to 2006 and the U.S. death toll in Iraq kept mounting, the perception began to grow that we had taken on an impossible task, that our troops were stuck in a pointless mission they could not win, and there was a political backlash that caught most Republicans by surprise.
ObamaCare is a quagmire, and Democrats have no exit strategy.
Sadly, the exit strategy is glaringly obvious. Repeal Obamacare, and replace it with meaningful measures that A- CAN be done and B- that leave those already insured alone, and C- that actually tries to fix the problems rather than hijacking the entire healthcare system. Yeah, I know, the Democrats will never go for that will they? Now might be a time for any Democrat reading this to ask themselves why they are still a Democrat.
Asshole! I suppose he never noticed when Democrats attacked George W. Bush just because he was from a different party?
Via The Hill:
People are willing to demonize Obama because he’s from a different party, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Tuesday that there are about 30 to 40 Republicans in Congress who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency and are seeking to erase everything that’s happened during his administration.
King made the remarks in a discussion with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, after the host asked how many Republicans would like to “erase [Obama’s] record as if he was never here.” [...]
“This is a very dangerous aspect to our government,” King said. “The fact that we have people who are willing to demonize the president of the United States because he’s from a different party.”
Way to prostate yourself on MSNBS Rep. King. Gutless wonder! I suppose we can expect King to be doing ads for knee pads soon.
Both were profligate spenders. While Bush had Medicare Part D, and largely unfunded wars, President Obama has doubled down with an $812 stimulus package and ObamaCare – which has been taxing us without providing benefits. Obama signed onto the 2009 budget exploding spending, which he only slightly scaled back. While W’s average yearly deficit was $250.7 billion, President Obama’s has been $1.273 trillion, and he has racked up over $6 trillion in national debt. Yet Obama once called Bush’s debt “irresponsible.” Now, about job creation…
2. Job Creation
Both had recessions to deal with. W. came into office with a recession after the dotcom bubble burst and then 9/11 hit. However, he was able to generate 52 straight months of job growth, before a housing market collapse. Obama’s average unemployment has been 8.8% (Bush’s was 5.27%), labor force participation rate is at the lowest since Oct. 1978 at 63.4%, without the benefit of much job growth – the country has netted 270,000 jobs since 2009, and the majority of Obama’s job creation has been temp & part-time jobs. No hype, no contest. Okay, let’s talk about war…
While W’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had bipartisan backing, and with prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi having stated their beliefs that Iraq had wmds, Obama feels he has the authority to send troops to potentially die for the country without Congressional representation. Joe Biden said W. should be impeached if he unilaterally took the U.S. to war with Iran, but the Nobel Peace Prize winning president may do it twice with Libya and Syria, while racking up 74% of the U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan. What about civil liberties?
4. Civil Liberties
The Patriot Act was opposed by Democrats and many Independents, Libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans, even in the aftermath of 9/11. Obama warned about the Patriot Act as a Senator in 2005, but signed onto it twice as president, without major alterations – by autopen. On Guantanamo Bay, he promised he would shut it down in his first year in office, but it remains open. And as far as domestic spying, the Bush-era breaches of Constitutional protections can’t touch Obama’s brazenly lawless NSA programs like PRISM. How about corruption?
While the main bone of contention for Democrats that Bush was corrupt was the refrain of Haliburton and no-bid contracts, President Obama too hired Haliburton subsidiary KBR with a no-bid contract worth $568 million. Additionally, the mantra “No Blood for Oil” proved to be an ill-founded concern when post-liberation Iraq was opened up for oil contracts. President Obama passed a massive healthcare package, like Bush, but exempted many unions and friendly corporations, not to mention politicians like himself. Obvious green energy kickbacks for party supporters include Solyndra, BrightSource, and NRG Energy. The stimulus package was rife with pet projects and pork. This leads into scandals…
The most egregious scandal of the Bush era was Abu Ghraib, which ran as a headline on the New York Times frontpage 47 times. Fast & Furious has drawn allusions to similar programs under Bush; however, the “gunwalking” under Obama led to untracked “assault rifles” falling into the hands of drug cartels, which promptly used them to murder hundreds of Mexicans and border patrol agent Brian Terry. Benghazi, seen as an unacceptable scandal by many, is where a US ambassador was murdered with no serious rescue operation ordered until much later… after stand down orders halted rescue protocols. The IRS’ profiling of conservative groups, and the NSA’s illegal surveillance programs, are also scandals that are not perceived to be “phony” to the majority of the informed public, as polled. Now, let’s look at a key campaign promise…
Lobbyists were said to be a main problem in Bush-era by the Obama administration, and Obama promised to put an end to it upon his arrival to Washington. Yet he continued hiring lobbyists and even secretly met with them off-the-record. Additionally, members of Obama’s economic team were plucked from Wall Street, and particularly, from Goldman Sachs, like Treasury Chief of Staff Mark Patterson, after the financial titan lucratively backed his first election. As for another big deal that makes Bush seem like a piker…
Whistleblowers have been suppressed more under Obama than under any other president. The current Commander-in-Chief has gone after multiple whistleblowers in the NSA, including Edward Snowden. Witnesses to Benghazi have been hidden from public questioning, and the #2 man in Libya Gregory Hicks was ostensibly demoted for even talking to Republican Congress members about what happened. The administration has unleashed the DOJ on the ATF, journalists at the AP, and Fox News reporter James Rosen. Back to the economy…
9. Economic Inequality
Economic inequality has worsened under Obama. As Emmanuel Saez found, under Bush from 2002 to 2007, the top 1% of earners captured 65% of all income growth. Under Obama from 2009-2010, the top 1% captured 93% of all income growth in the country. It could be posed that this widening disparity is a reflection of regulatory barriers to small business growth being erected in the private sector, the tax write-offs and loopholes for corporations that still persist (including in green energy), and the flood of easy money that is channeled to Wall Street, but erodes the value of the dollar on Main Street. Need I say more? So this leads naturally to GDP growth…
10. GDP Growth
George W. Bush’s real GDP or economic growth was a subpar 1.67% (the historical average from 1980-2000 was 3.405%), but President Obama is the worst post-WWII president in such terms at 1.075%. In fact, in the last quarter of 2012, the economy Obama helps set policy for experienced negative GDP growth of 0.1%, also known as “contraction.” This year, the Obama reworked the formula the government uses to come up with GDP growth numbers by adding Hollywood movies and other intellectual property sources to the equation. Finally…
11. Race Relations
Race relations seem to be getting worse under President Obama, contrary to expectations upon the election of America’s first black president. While there are no sound reasons to believe George W. Bush’s policies were substantively racist – it seemed a foregone conclusion that relations would improve under Obama. However, only 10% polled by Rasmussen believe race relations are improving. President Obama may share King’s “dream,” but as far as his record goes, it is too often being judged by the color of his skin, and not by the character of its content.
And, by Liberals I of course include the media. When George W. Bush was president, deficits mattered, and to be fair there was too much spending under W, but since Obama
assumed his throne, I mean was elected President, Liberals have a fever. A fever which only can be cured by more spending apparently. Deficits? Find a Liberal that takes them seriously, no matter how massive those deficits are
Via CNS News:
The Congressional Budget Office last week released updated historical budget data for the federal government, reporting a deficit of $1.087 trillion in fiscal 2012.
2012 marked the fourth straight year—and the only four years in the history of the nation–when the federal government’s deficit topped $1 trillion.
Last year’s $1.087 trillion deficit was even greater in inflation-adjusted dollars than the peak World War II deficit of fiscal 1943—which was $54.554 billion in 1943 dollars and $723.8714 billion in 2012 dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics online inflation calculator.
A former cybersecurity advisor to President George W. Bush says a sophisticated computer hack could have been the cause of the automobile accident that claimed the life of journalist Michael Hastings last week in Los Angeles.
Richard Clarke, a State Department official-turned-special advisor to several United States presidents, said the early morning auto crash last Tuesday was “consistent with a car cyberattack,” raising new questions about the death of the award-winning journalist.
Hastings died last week when his 2013 Mercedes C250 coupe collided with a tree in Los Angeles, California on the morning of June 18. He was reportedly traveling at a high rate of speed and failed to stop at a red light moments before the single-car crash. He was only 33.
Speaking to Huffington Post this week, Clarke said that a cyberattack waged at the vehicle could have caused the fatal collision.
“What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it’s relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn’t want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn’t want the brakes on, to launch an air bag,” Clarke told The Huffington Post. “You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it’s not that hard.”
“So if there were a cyberattack on the car — and I’m not saying there was,” Clarke continued, “I think whoever did it would probably get away with it.”
The Los Angeles Police Department said they don’t expect foul play was involved in the crash, but an investigation has been opened nonetheless.
In an email reportedly sent by Hastings hours before the crash, he told colleagues that he thought he was the target of a federal investigation.
“Hey [redacted}, the Feds are interviewing my ‘close friends and associates,’” Hastings wrote 15 hours before the crash.
Personally, I would bet Hastings was drunk, or stoned, or just driving like an idiot, and the crash was his fault, but this is an interesting theory
Fritz asks, and answers the question, who is Pat Smith?
Remember Cindy Sheehan? Sheehan lost her son, Army Specialist Casey Sheehan, in the Iraq War in 2004, became a staunch anti-war activist, and an overnight celebrity. Where Sheehan went, cameras, microphones, and fawning praise followed, breathlessly capturing her every thought on President Bush and the war. The makeshift camp she set up outside of Bush’s Crawford ranch attracted scores of (other) celebrities, journalists, and even Congressmen. Sheehan’s message was not only devoutly covered but even flattering monikers were bestowed (“the Rosa Parks of the peace movement!”) and accolades were endless.
Sheehan was given any and every platform, with the media tripping over itself, for years, to report her words.
The espoused rationale for the intense coverage was, purportedly, that this grieving mother deserved an ‘explanation’ for her son’s death. This despite the fact that, as tragic as her loss was, Sheehan’s quest was not one seeking answers, nor were there any unaddressed questions or mysteries about her son’s death – her mission was a general, common one: that of an anti-war protestor.
That same media, however, who believed Sheehan was owed an explanation, is curiously dismissive of Pat Smith. Pat Smith lost her son, Information Officer Sean Smith, in the Benghazi attack last autumn. But apart from a few scattered interviews, the mainstream media has, for months, turned its back on Smith, seemingly echoing Hillary Clinton’s “What difference does it make?!” sentiment. Far from receiving praise and encouragement, Smith, in an interview with Sean Hannity on his radio program last week, emotionally noted the efforts to silence her.
But both are grieving mothers who lost a son while he served his country abroad during a controversial event. So why the difference in treatment? Why was one mother inundated with media while the other is shunned?
Quite simply, Cindy Sheehan — slamming the “illegal and immoral” war for “oil” and comparing Bush to Hitler — was Christmas morning, every morning, for the Left.
The media, once again, refuses to do their job!