Then the summary of the article came through. In essence

one must ask how much of this is Mr Obama’s fault….In the end Congress – not the president – makes these decisions. Congress – not the president – is the main cause of the delays and uncertainties. In domestic policy, Mr Obama can advocate but he cannot decree. Judge him against what he can do.

Yup – it’s those darn unenlisted men that he didn’t draft who are the problem – you know, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

Analogy time: there is good news and bad news. According to the 2008 news media, as a Democrat you are now in the finest company in the entire US of A – with some of the best potential and training to ensure you can survive almost anything. You should be looking at a super majority for oh, 20 years or so.

The bad news: This guy is leading you. Yeah, Captain Sobel. He can’t read a map, gets confused when his surroundings don’t match what he thinks the map is telling him – and ultimately his own party would rather give up their stripes than follow him into a real battle.

BTW: If this anti business mood and anti business flair on legislation really isn’t Obama’s fault – he’s the Democratic party leader but somehow can’t manage to lead his other party leaders – how much of ’00-’08 was Congress’ fault and not GWB? I’m jest askin’….

ShareThis

George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be.

That’s the verdict of 238 of the nation’s leading presidential scholars, who – for a fifth time – rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll.

In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position – two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.

Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background.

“Most of the presidents came from elite backgrounds, and he certainly did not,” said professor Douglas Lonnstrom, who crunched the numbers. “He grew up without a father.”

By contrast, Bush’s dad was our 41st president, George H.W. Bush, who came in 22nd in the poll.

And yet, the scholars rated Dubya a dud as a president, ranking him in the bottom five at 39th place.

That’s a steep drop from 23rd place, which is where Bush ranked when he entered the survey after his first year in office.

Bush got docked for saddling Obama with two bloody wars and a recession, and he got low marks for “ability to compromise, foreign policy
accomplishments and intelligence,” according to the survey.

Yeah, there’s no liberal bias there at all.

I’m curious: why exactly is a good imagination an important trait for a president to have? I mean, it’s a good thing for a kindergartner to possess, but a president? And intelligence? Sure, being smart is important, but being intelligent does not automatically make one a good leader. And Obama’s intelligence is definitely currently in question. Ability to communicate? Have these idiots ever seen Obama try to string a sentence together without the trusty TOTUS on hand?

Clearly, these people are living in an alternate reality. Our economy is crashing, unemployment keeps climbing, spending is skyrocketing, our national debt is out of control, shoved through one of the most corrupt, unethical, and unwanted bills in United States history with Obamacare, Afghanistan is getting worse and worse under Obama’s lack of leadership and commitment, we’re less respected than ever around the world, we’ve had several terrorist attacks that were only unsuccessful because of the terrorists’ own stupidity, and we have a disaster in the Gulf with no leadership from the federal government whatsoever.

Yeah, he’s a great president all right. Forget all that dumb stuff! Obama sure can read off a teleprompter real good, and that’s all that matters to these librul scholarz.

What. A. Joke.

ShareThis

Family friend Sally Quinn told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that Gore winning the popular vote for president but losing the electoral vote may have done the marriage irreparable harm.

“He’s obviously suffered a lot,” Quinn said. “He’ll never get over that and neither will she.”

If only that heartless bastard hadn’t won, then Al and Tipper would still be happily making out in public.

This divorce, by the way, is as earth-shattering to leftists as Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston’s divorce was to celeb junkies. The way they’re carrying on about this is ridiculous. It’s as if their marriage was the only healthy marriage in all of politics, and now it’s been revealed to be fake. How sad.

I hate to point out the obvious, but George and Laura Bush are still going strong.

ShareThis

Right?

As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

… During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year–2010–more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”

… By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.

Well, this is just great news. The war in Iraq may have been financially costly, but we liberated a nation, greatly weakened Al-Qaeda, strengthened our national security, possibly gained a second ally in the Middle East, and put a madman dictator to death. I think that any reasonable, sane person would agree that it was well worth the cost.

But increasing welfare spending? Are you kidding me? It’s just horrible to know that we’re going to be further encouraging people to let themselves sink into poverty, or, if they’re already there, to remain there. After all, why work hard and be responsible when the government can just take care of all of that for you? The people who actually are hard-working and responsible can afford to pay for those lazy, do-nothing, greedy slackers, right?

Of course, it’s politically advantageous for Obama to keep as many people on welfare as possible. The more people he’s got on welfare, see, the more people he will have to vote Democrat. Welfare recipients overwhelmingly vote Democrat come election time, and they also tend to be more ultra-liberal. This is understandable, because while they may be lazy bottom-feeders, they aren’t stupid. They understand that welfare reform means that they have to get off their lazy asses and actually work instead of just leech off the rest of us productive Americans. It’s a very convenient relationship for both parties, the Democrats and the welfare recipients. As long as the welfare recipients keep voting Democrat, then they know they’ll keep getting more money in welfare reform.

And what does it matter to Democrats or welfare recipients that welfare doesn’t help get anyone out of poverty? The answer is it doesn’t, yet it’s not keeping Obama from wasting a monumental amount of our money on welfare, does it?

Hat Tip: Right Wing News

ShareThis

Former President George W. Bush fired a salvo at President Obama on Wednesday, asserting his administration’s interrogation policies were within the law, declaring the private sector — not government — will fix the economy and rejecting the nationalization of health care.

“I know it’s going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we’re in,” the former president said to applause from members of a local business group. “You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money.”

Repeatedly in his hourlong speech and question-and-answer session, Mr. Bush said he would not directly criticize the new president, who has moved to take over financial institutions and several large corporations. Several times, however, he took direct aim at Obama policies as he defended his own during eight years in office.

“Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States,” he said to huge cheers.

Mr. Bush weighed in on some of the most pressing issues of the day: the election in Iran, the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, and his administration’s interrogation policies of terrorists held there and elsewhere. The former president has not commented on Mr. Obama’s decision to ban “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding, which the current president has called “off course” and “based on fear.”

“The way I decided to address the problem was twofold: One, use every technique and tool within the law to bring terrorists to justice before they strike again,” he said, adding that the country needs to stay on offense, not defense. On Guantanamo, which while in office Mr. Bush said he wanted to close, the former president was diplomatic.

“I told you I’m not going to criticize my successor,” he said. “I’ll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don’t believe that — persuasion isn’t going to work. Therapy isn’t going to cause terrorists to change their mind.”

The first part of his argument made me wince a little, because come on — Bush wasn’t exactly the most fiscally responsible president we’ve ever had. Still, I do think he does believe in the free market and I certainly don’t think Bush ever wanted government to control our lives.

Now, his statements on Gitmo were right on in my book. And what a zinger! Therapy isn’t going to cause terrorists change their minds. LOVE. IT. And God love him for speaking the truth. Someone besides Dick Cheney needs to, because Bush is absolutely right — the vast majority of the men at Gitmo, if not all of them, would kill Americans at the drop of a hat if given the opportunity. Releasing them into the United States and making our interrogation techniques less harsh does not make us safer; it puts us more at risk.

Obama’s been blaming Bush for every problem in the world since the day he took office, regardless of how gracious and classy Bush has been since leaving office. It’s about time he stood up for himself, something he repeatedly declined to do while actually in office. I hope he keeps making statements like this, and I hope he gets the guts to keep on swinging.

ShareThis

As a sign of respect, presumably, when Obama enters the room, the members of the press corps stand. For Bush, they remained in their seats.

That’s all right, though. Bush had the respect of our troops, whereas Obama does not. And when you’ve got that, who needs a bunch of whiny, unprincipled, spineless weasles like MSM hacks?

ShareThis

Anyway, here he is throwing out the first pitch at a Texas Rangers game. He throws a helluva good pitch, and then signs the baseball. Nice guy.

And the crowd was cheering for him the entire time.

Wonder what their reaction would be to Obama.

ShareThis

First, President Bush:

Now, President Obama’s entrance to meet Marines at Camp Lejeune last week:

The excitement was noticeably muted. They didn’t even clap.

I could’ve predicted this, though. Anyone could have. There is a noted difference in the respect the military had for George Bush, and the respect they have now for Barack Obama. But can you blame them? Why on earth should our troops respect a man who has zero respect for them? I mean, technically they have to. But the difference in how they react to Bush vs. Obama speaks volumes.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

ShareThis

Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs

ShareThis

This sums up, in a nutshell, the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans usually believe that Americans are smart enough to run their own lives; Democrats don’t. Republicans usually think that Americans deserve to keep their own money; Democrats don’t. Republicans usually think that Americans will lead their lives perfectly fine without government intervention; Democrats don’t.

Liberals just can’t seem to grasp the fact that people don’t need their all-knowing wisdom-filled genius to live happy and full lives. When President Bush said that it was presumptuous to tell Americans how to live their own lives, I wanted to cheer. It’s something that liberals aren’t able to understand. They think that the American people are idiots who can’t be trusted to be intelligent enough to figure things out on their own, and therefore need liberals to come in and do everything for them.

But hey, it would be nice to not have to worry about balancing my checkbook anymore. I guess I should vote for the Obamamessiah and his hope-changeyness! HOPECHANGE!

Hat Tip: Hot Air

ShareThis