Skip to comments.The public still blames Bush. And it celebrates the Clintons.
Posted on 12/19/2013 9:26:32 AM PST by chessplayer
Nearly five years after George W. Bush left office, half the public still blames the former president for the nations economic woes, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And half the people voted for the marxist. Half the American public has head-in-anus disease, and it doesn’t seem to be curable.
Wait until January 1st, that is all about to change.
Bush is new world order, so is Obama. So are the Clintoons. That brings us neatly all the way back to Reagan, who was forced to include the NWO operative GHWB on his ticket.
Remember, this is a WaPo/abc poll. Not much credibility there.
The Washington Post is an offensive cheerleader. They make headlines that become self-fulfilling, and 50% of the population remains low info and Marxist-worshipping. This is the full-court press that the media will keep going until November 2014.
....Or so WaPo CLAIMS.
Yep, when all else is failing The Machine goes back to “blame Bush”
When the voters come November 2014 will send a message to WaPo and the other old MSM press that there will be a lot of house/senate cleaning.
I blame Bushfor ruining the GOP brand. obama ruined the economy.
....You mean the “stupid voters”.
They are freaking that he is a rising hipster icon
GWB not just lobbed a slow ball to Obama on this he practically held the ball out for Obama to swing at it.
Of course after the crisis with all the Fed stimulus and government borrowing, spending and some payroll tax cuts (early 2009 thru 2012) the economy would look improved, compared to total collapse.
Thank GWB for us having Obama.
‘’....You mean the mean ‘’the stupid voters’’. They’re too stupid to be idiots.
That’s silly. 2010 happened. Against the will of the media. There’s no doubt the media is powerful but Obamacare is a literal wrecking ball with undeniable effects on peoples’ families jobs and earnings. You can see the massive shift in opinion over the past three months. Now, we have to rely on a pathetic opposition political party to deliver the goods next fall. I have less than good faith in them. That said, our side has repeatedly won the debates and own elections at all levels despite the media. We have tons of governors in blue and purple states. Assuming we are powerless is not accurate.
LOL. Dream on, Washington com Post.
Yes, I know I said carton.
50% blame Bush
50% blame Obama
Both sides are at fault.
We need a “Third Way”.
We need Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!
This is nothing more than a Hillary for president commercial.
Was it half or was it actually 47%?
Sadly, that conspiracy theory is looking more and more credible, especially when the tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber choices in each election since 1984 are considered. Every election from 1988 on has only offered bad and worse options of internationalist, big-government statists. Since 1984, Team Red has offered Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney. Team Blue was only marginally worse with Dukakis, Clintoon, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. I’m not sure we wouldn’t all be better off if Dukakis had won in 1988. As bad as Obama is, I’m glad McCain lost.
I think there’s a 50/50 chance of that happening.
In Politics, eleven Months is a long, long, time. The Media will be in crisis mode making sure the typical Low / No Information Voter will be shielded from the Truth.
Considering what a terrible job Bush did with his ObamaCare roll out, and the way he messed up DeathPanel.gov web site, I’m not surprised the voters blame him.
Look for the NEW media to start opening eyes and ears BIGTIME.
Nothing to do with Bush, he just happened to be in office when the Dem-Controlled Congress let the disaster reach full proportions, so they could get a democrat elected as President.
And the same Democrats are going to cause AN EVEN BIGGER financial disaster by trying to make sure everyone has give “Affordable Heatlh Care”.
I don’t believe this for a minute. Most Americans cannot remember back 5 days, much less five years. I wager that if polled, a large segment of the population couldn’t even TELL you who was president before Obama.
After the new Congress took the oath in Jan 2007, Bush’s nice guy persona became a huge liability towards the cause of limited government and free enterprise (After already being shaken to the core).
Gee, the Washington Post finds yet another way to attack Bush and imply he is responsible for bad things. This is probably only about the millionth time they have done this. The poll is probably flawed.
I will say this, I have to talk to liberal Democrats all the time and liberals can not go more than a minute talking about anything without blaming Bush for something. There is no logic, no thought process and no reasoning. It is just Bush is to blame.
You believe everything you are told?
Actually, Bush and the Republican Congress bear some blame for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meltdown.
Specifically: They knew it was coming. They heard the testimony from the whistleblower in the toothless watchdog agency. Consequently, the House passed a Financial Reform Act in 2005, designed to address the problem. But the Democrats filibustered the measure in the Senate...and the Republican Senate caved in and gave up.
Had they been responsible stewards of the government, the GOP would've stood their ground and made a big issue out of the Democrats' recalcitrance -- indeed criminal behavior.
Instead, they threw their hands in the air and continued "business as usual" -- leaving the Democrats to pull the plug on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when it best suited their interests...in September of an election year.
Aside from the Democrats, the one GOPer who was most to blame was, yes, wait for it, Sen. John Sidney McCain. He sponsored the reform measure in the Senate and, in a floor speech, described the probable consequences of inaction with prescient accuracy. Then, after the successful filibuster, he led the détente.
It was ironic justice that it was his presidential campaign that got derailed by the failure of Fannie and Freddie.
In 2007 GWB had a priority list of things he wanted or needed done.
Getting the Pelosi House to fund the Iraq surge was #1 on his list.
(As an aside Notice that Pelosi didnt let her lib House members shut down the military to defund Iraq in 2007.)
So Bush was willing to give in on Dem stuff to get stuff he wanted done. Then banned light bulbs, for future.
Then came TARP, same rule.
In the end it didnt help him wrt his legacy as this polls shows.
Sorry, this is simply not true.
Anyone with three functioning neurons could detect the inflating housing bubble by mid-2005 or so.
All Bush would have had to do would be to go public then with the announcement that there would be no bailouts of investors on his watch, that those holding mortgage backed securities did so entirely at their own risk.
Not a single Democrat vote needed.......
Without cooperation from the Democrats the GOP would have been blamed not credited for reform and for hating minorities. The media would still be going on today about how much the right hates black people if you had taken away those subprimes back in the day when we had the majority.
sorry, I already know the American voting majority is stupid.
I understand your point.
But the GOP was faced with two choices:
a. Do the right thing for the country...and be pilloried by the press and the Democrats.
b. Or do nothing...only to have the economy collapse...and be pilloried by the press and the Democrats.
What, exactly, did McCain, Bush & Company gain by not rocking the boat?
Being passive and non-confrontational has failed to gain the party any credit. And, at the same time, the entire country has had to pay a terrible price.
Perhaps, it's time to try something else -- in the hope of arriving at a different result: To stand firmly on principle and fight for what's best.
Perhaps the right thing was NOT to take unilateral action. Bush tried to get the Democrats to vote with the GOP for reform because at least some form of bipartisanship (even token) really often is the only way to achieve lasting reform. That's one huge reason why Obamacare is crashing...it was unilateral.
If the GOP had gone unilateral on the subprimes, the MSM rhetoric would have been that the GOP were "dictators" and "racists" and we would have had a worse rout than we had '08. We'd likely still today have Dem House control and Obama would have gotten cap and trade, gun control, guananamo closed, etc. etc. etc.
Being passive and non-confrontational has failed to gain the party any credit
It's not about passivity. It's about trying to keep the country from being too divided because then you have Civil War.
We live in a time when the only way to achieve bipartisanship is for the Republicans to concede. When was the last time that a few Democrats provided the winning margin to a Republican bill?
Frankly, I can't recall such an event.
Is bipartisanship in support of bad policy to be preferred over unilateralism in favor of good policy? Surely, you're not arguing that...
‘Bipartisan’ means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. - George Carlin
No, the GOP didn't concede when they passed the insurance bill a few weeks ago...the one that allowed companies to keep '13 policies in place. 39 Dems voted for it.
Is bipartisanship in support of bad policy to be preferred over unilateralism in favor of good policy?
Good policy needs to be supported by the ability to make it last. If you got a reform bill only to have the Democrats flood the legislature and reverse it...what good is that?
That's his burden to live with.
People take Bush seriously.
That's his burden.
C'mon. That was easy. Every Democrat in the House knew that the Senate would not take up the bill. There was never any chance that it would be passed.
And you credit the Republicans for not "conceding" -- in a circumstance where there was no risk. But how did they perform when they really had a chance to stop Obamacare in its tracks?
McConnell, McCain, Boehner, et al folded like a cheap suit, even conceding to the President that which was a constitutional prerogative of the House.
and by “public” it means the liberal sheeple
It wasn't popular here but I always thought it was political for him to try to keep the public unaware of what was really needed because of 2004 and 2006 elections, a bit like Johnson in the 1960s tried to keep that on low profile for as long as he could.
But naturally in the long run it backfired when Iraq killings were every day news because it became a huge mess, requiring the surge
In other words Dems are not the only ones with political motives,