June 2, 2012

Bill Clinton did not come to Wisconsin to help Tom Barrett win the recall election.

The Democrats have given so little help to Tom Barrett in his effort to oust Scott Walker, but Bill Clinton did show up for a rally yesterday, 4 days before the recall election. Barrett's impending loss was so apparent that — I think— the Democratic Party elite had decided that it was best to avoid association with him. Spin it as an insignificant, local matter, even as the Republicans are portraying it as a test of whether governors all over America can make bold reforms and a prediction of what will happen in the fall election.

So what changed? Why does Clinton show up now? I'm going to say: Money! Scott Walker is about to win, about to collect his new mandate, and the Democrats are going to want to raise money off that event. The terrible Scott Walker — now with more power — threatens America! Quick, send money! That's the pitch they want to go out next Wednesday. But how can they do that if they did nothing to help Tom Barrett defeat Scott Walker? The savvy recipient of the quick-send-money email might think: If Scott Walker was so dangerous, why didn't you people do what you could to defeat him when you had the chance? But if the well-loved, charismatic President goes to Wisconsin, that's the one thing people will remember. The clips and quotes of the man can be mobilized for money gathering.

You can watch Clinton's whole speech over here. You can comb through that and see what might prove useful to the Democratic Party as it pursues victory in the fall elections.

But I want to focus on something else, a second theory about why Bill Clinton came to Wisconsin. I'm not convinced Clinton is devoted to the short game of reelecting Obama. I think he might be playing a long game: Hillary 2016. The game of Hillary 2016 can be won in different ways, but one path opens up if Obama loses in 2012. If he loses, why will he have lost? And how would Bill Clinton frame that loss as he plays Hillary 2016?

Bill Clinton might think in terms of Bill Clinton: I won in 1996, because I leveraged myself off the Republican victory in 1994, which is exactly what Obama has failed to do in response to the Republican victory in 2010. Can't you see that potential in Clinton's remarks at the "Tom Barrett" rally?
“This divide-and-conquer, no compromise crowd, if they’d been in control, there never would have been a United States Constitution....

“Cooperation works. Constant conflict is a dead-bang loser and you need to get rid of it,” said Clinton, rattling off incidences of Republicans and Democrats cooperating...
Obama hasn't been cooperating with Republicans. He certainly hasn't used Republican power in Congress as a way to rack up credit for some conservative reform the way Bill Clinton did welfare reform. Here's Bill Clinton basking in self-admiration in a NYT op-ed "How We Ended Welfare, Together":
Regarding the politics of welfare reform, there is a great lesson to be learned, particularly in today’s hyper-partisan environment, where the Republican leadership forces bills through Congress without even a hint of bipartisanship. Simply put, welfare reform worked because we all worked together. The 1996 Welfare Act shows us how much we can achieve when both parties bring their best ideas to the negotiating table and focus on doing what is best for the country....

Ten years ago, neither side got exactly what it had hoped for. While we compromised to reach an agreement, we never betrayed our principles and we passed a bill that worked and stood the test of time. This style of cooperative governing is anything but a sign of weakness. It is a measure of strength, deeply rooted in our Constitution and history, and essential to the better future that all Americans deserve, Republicans and Democrats alike.
The date on that op-ed was 2006. What was Bill Clinton doing in 2006? He was playing a little game called Hillary 2008.

65 comments:

Naomi said...

If Hillary wants to get elected she this might be a good time for her to *start wasshing her hair* and looking like something other than an abused girl-friend. While I can believe she'd like the power of being President, I'm not convinced she has the energy left to really try.

Naomi said...

I guess that comment's proof that I *really* need to start wearing my glasses to type :-(.

edutcher said...

As I say, forget Hillary. If she wanted to make a fight of it, she would have said, "yes", when Willie wanted her to primary Choom. In '16, she'd be 70 and running against the Romster with no real record of her own at either State (unless you count the disasters) or in the Senate.

Willie's doing this for the Party; his appearance is a token boatload of supplies, brought in by sub, to Corregidor just before Bataan falls.

PS "How We Ended Welfare, Together"???

As they once said in the Manchu regiment, "What's this WE, you racist scum?".

Newt dragged Willie into welfare reform kicking and screaming and sulking and pouting and sticking his lower lip out only after it sunk in that Newt could override any veto Willie wanted to sign and the media couldn't bail him out.

David said...

In fairness, Obama did fly right over Madison, the jet engines burning taxpayer dollars all the way, on his way to three fundraisers in Minnesota.

Kevin said...

Come on - Obama was in Wisconsin yesterday, ready to help.

I mean, Obama flew over Wisconsin yesterday traveling between fundraisers in Minneapolis and Chicago...

Jay said...

While we compromised to reach an agreement, we never betrayed our principles and we passed a bill that worked and stood the test of time.

Timeout.

Bill Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice (that bill passed with 87 votes in the Senate). He only signed the bill because he was told he would lose the election if he did not sign this legislation.

Further, the usual suspects on Capitol Hill (Jackson-Lee, Waters, Carol Mosley-Braun) & "welfare advocates" went totally ballistic with the pessimistic predictions (CDF President Marian Wright Edelman, who declared that ending the guarantee of a federal welfare check to those in need will leave "a moral blot on [Clinton's] presidency and on our nation that will never be forgotten.")

Clinton bucked his base and the typical big government sycophants went wild (along with CBS, "News", the NYT, WaPo, etc).


So pretending that this was a prime example of "working together" is revisionist history.

KenK said...

I wonder though professor. If Barrett is the least bit close in the final count then this whole thing drags through the count, recount, re-re-count and then wends its way through the Madison-based judiciary for a final resolution. Walker could win the election and still lose his office. (Ask Norm Coleman or Dino Rossi how this tactic works)

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

HA HA HA HA HA HA, Talk about zero credibility:

"Does anyone else find it unnerving," Jack White wrote in Time's September 2, 1996, issue, "that only days before Bill Clinton signed a welfare-reform law that will plunge more than a million children into official poverty, he marked his fiftieth birthday with glitzy celebrations in New York City that added $10 million to his party's bulging campaign war chest? Shades of Marie Antoinette, Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms."

Notice how the rhetoric never changes?

The Drill SGT said...

It's not about money. Bill knows that Obama has the check books under complete control at the DNC, etc. Every dime that can be begged or borrowed, and the DNC will borrow to its max limit is going to reelect The Won. Let the next smuck pay it off.

No, this is all about Bill Clinton getting a little oxygen and voter love on stage while being seen as a Dem Stalwart who is willing to help out the underdog, unlike those a$$holes in Chicago. Don't tell me that won't play well in WI :)

Bottom line: Bill Clinton loving Bill and setting up for a Hillary threat in '16. Even if she doesn't run, the possiblility gives Bill several more years of MSM love :)

Jay said...

I love trips down memory lane:

"In light of the new welfare reform bill, do you think the children need more prayers than ever before?" Bryant Gumbel, then with NBC, asked the CDF's Edelman on the September 23, 1996, Today show.

And:

"Welfare reform could leave Los Angeles as penniless as the poor who line up each day for public assistance," Mike Boettcher stated on the August 1, 1996, NBC Nightly News. That same evening, his CBS counterpart, Bill Whitaker, similarly warned that "in Los Angeles, America's dream factory, many local politicians are calling the welfare reform bill a nightmare."

Note that Bryant Goofball makes millions per year and it is unclear how much he gives to children's charities...

jd said...

this piece makes no sense. just saying. bill clinton advocating for hillary first over obama second isn't really novel insight...

ricpic said...

Hillary come 2016 is gonna look o-o-o-o-o-l-d.

Call it sexist all you like, America ain't gonna elect an old woman prez.

David said...

About a month ago, I was taking the Washington to LaGuardia shuttle flight. Hilary was on board, up in the first class section. She was chattering away with someone, and actually she looked great. I was kind of surprised because many photos of her are so dumpy-frumpy. It's hard to photograph well, and of course you don't get to choose what is published.

edutcher said...

The Drill SGT said...

It's not about money. Bill knows that Obama has the check books under complete control at the DNC, etc. Every dime that can be begged or borrowed, and the DNC will borrow to its max limit is going to reelect The Won. Let the next smuck pay it off.

No, this is all about Bill Clinton getting a little oxygen and voter love on stage while being seen as a Dem Stalwart who is willing to help out the underdog, unlike those a$$holes in Chicago. Don't tell me that won't play well in WI :)

Bottom line: Bill Clinton loving Bill and setting up for a Hillary threat in '16. Even if she doesn't run, the possiblility gives Bill several more years of MSM love :)


All Willie has to do is clear his throat and the cameras appear - which is just what he craves.

That vanity needs constant stroking and he's the closest thing the Demos have to FDR - or probably will have for the next 20 years or so, especially if the Occupation makes good on its threats this summer.

That said, Walker is quickly turning WI into a red state -teacher union membership is down by a third and it probably is going to be the pattern for AFSCME, SEIU, and all the other public sector unions - which will starve the Demo machine of money.

traditionalguy said...

Bill has started to call awake and into action his loyal dependents in the media and the 1990s Democrat Party apparatus like an army of Manchurian Candidates asleep in the bottom of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid boat.

Barack's sudden downfall is not going to be pretty. CNN ia already having whiplash symptoms.

Why it is being done is indeed an interesting question. Money is always a possible answer and power is the most basic answer.

You could say that Bill is the Phallic candidate who wants to penetrate more conquests. Hillary as always plays Bill's official wife in the cast and nothing more.

Auntie Ann said...

If Obama uses Clinton on the campaign trail, Romney supporters should show up an chant "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"--because ask just about any Republican, and they'll tell you they would have preferred Hillary.

glenn said...

Or Billy Jeff could have showed up because the cheerleaders in Wisconsin are hot. Ya never know.

edutcher said...

Was Willie's audience as small as it looked on some of the pictures indicated?

Looked like only about 400 or so.

Must have really shaken his ego, quite a comedown.

Hagar said...

If Hillary was planning to run again, she would not let herself be seen in public looking like Ernestine Blofeld.

edutcher said...

More like Rosa Klebb.

Rose said...

Bill Clinton was the most powerful man on earth. Both he and Hillary would have kept that status, and lived a life of prestige and decorum.

There is no reason for him to act the Democrat shill. When he came here (CA), to pimp for Hillary, it was amazing how shoddy he looked, spouting tired old campaign cliches. They sound so hollow.

Nor is there any reason for him - OR her - to bow to Democrat power, or bite their lips and take it on the chin, as they did when Obama ( and Kennedy) screwed Hillary's chances with their dirty campaign style.

Yet there he is. The moth to the flame.

If nothing else, someone who has served in the White House ought to GROK that it is so much bigger than partisan bickering.

A real man would stand up and chide the Democrats of Wisconsin for their scurrilous tactics, for fleeing rather than standing and 'working together.'

But he doesn't, does he?

Rabel said...

David,

With all due respect, I don't think the Secretary of State flies commercial.

Leaving on a jet plane

Rabel said...

edutcher,

From Mother Jones:

"Former President Bill Clinton whipped a crowd of thousands into a frenzy Friday morning at a rally in downtown Milwaukee to support Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the challenger hoping to defeat Gov. Scott Walker in next week's recall election."

I think that writer just liked the image of Clinton and a whipping frenzy.

Chip Ahoy said...

Rose! The moth to the flame. That so nails it. No more analysis needed.

It is a fatal attraction. Astromoths pop up card.

Hagar said...

Which, of course, may not be enough to stop Slick Willie from dreaming.
Bill is Bill and won't change in this life.

And Rabel, that might depend on what she was up to. State Dept. flights get recorded.

pm317 said...

Heh, you could have had a Hillary in 08.

Clinton is being Clinton. They are very smart people and they have solutions and ideas for the current problems. Whether you like their ideas is a different matter. It is hard for people like him to sit on the sidelines and do nothing.

Hillary 2016 is very iffy even for this ardent Hillary supporter. She is not getting younger and in this youth obsessed (and sexist) society, it is difficult to see her winning only on merits in 2016.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

Maybe Bill could be a broker-bundler, speak one day for Romney, 'sterling business career,' and the next day/event for Obama, 'no way Romney should be elected'. 'All contributions made to the Romney or Obama campaign are made with the express knowledge of the donor that 20% is taken out by Bill for his personal "Edwards" fund.'

bagoh20 said...

The Clintons, and the policies they like, are ancient history worldwide. Nobody, nowhere can afford or justify them. There are death twitches here and there, but eventually the math and economics will have it's day, and that day is coming quickly.

People are starting to realize now that the golden age for liberals was bought by selling the future. Walker type reforms and others not yet invented will sweep across the nation out of necessity, if not wisdom.

samanthasmom said...

Or maybe Bill's having a little fun. He chose May 31st, a day that will live in infamy for Hillary's supporters, to publicly say that Romney has more than passed the qualifications for the presidency with a "stellar career" in business. Maybe he's being "helpful".

edutcher said...

Rabel said...

edutcher,

From Mother Jones:

"Former President Bill Clinton whipped a crowd of thousands into a frenzy Friday morning at a rally in downtown Milwaukee to support Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the challenger hoping to defeat Gov. Scott Walker in next week's recall election."


CBS and WisPolitics said hundreds and the Fox outlet in Green Bay said 1000.

From the pics Ann put up, it looked smaller than that.

But Willie was animated when he spoke. He really reacts to that attention.

dbp said...

The perfect move for Obama would be to put HRC in as VP. Bill Clinton would get behind the campaign in a big way if that happened. If she was the VP in a second term, she would easily win the nomination in 2016.

On the other hand, if Romney is the next president then he will either be a success or a failure. If he is a success, she could win the nomination and then loose to Romney in the general. If Romney is a failure, then every big gun in the Democratic party will enter the nomination fight and HRC will not even get nominated.

Her best route the the White House is as VP. I think Bill Clinton is sending a subtle message to Obama. One that Obama is too stupid to notice.

Rabel said...

Nice photo of Bill and Barack here which seems to fall in line with Althouse's speculation:

Stinkeye

Hagar said...

Obama will stick with Biden. The one reason he got picked in the first place was that "good ol' Joe" can be counted on to do as he is told in the end, regardless of what he may have said in the meantime.

Hagar said...

Obama is not a person to pick a V-P candidate who might have ideas of his, or her, own.

PatCA said...

Yes, he is playing both games, any game except "Obama Winning." He knows Romney is going to win and is hedging all his bets.

edutcher said...

Disagree that Hillary's best shot was through Blair House. She'd have been 65 when she got her shot If she'd been Willie's Veep (for the sake of argument), she'd have been the right age and have had the right experience in '00.

OTOH, Willie wouldn't have wanted a specific post Hilla's Administration.

He would have wanted something like Ambassador To The World or Special Assistant (as opposed to Co-President), so he could do pretty much do what he wanted and still have the travel and the women and the high level conferences and the women and the prestige and the women.

deborah said...

dbp:

Her best route the the White House is as VP. I think Bill Clinton is sending a subtle message to Obama. One that Obama is too stupid to notice.

I would think Obama has been begging Hillary to be his running mate. It would work to help him win, but would work against her in '16. After eight years of Obama, her chances would be approximately nil.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

By endorsing Barrett, Clinton effectively endorsed the year long hissy fit and the fleebaggers running away from home to prevent a duly elected governor and legislature from implementing his agenda. The only thing missing from his visit is that he didn't bang his bongos in the capitol.

Seems like a risky move if the intent is to position his wife as a compromising moderate for 2016.

Andrew X said...

Hillary 2016? Please.

Look, she'll be a 69 year old woman, just a few months shy of the age of Old Man Ron. Remeber how many people harped on his age? And a woman, say what you will of that.

Then, to this day, Hillary is categorically 20th century. What has she said or done at ALL that makes her in touch with this modern era, even today? We conservatives hold the past in high esteem, but damn sure not enough for us to vote Hillary.

Then, would not nominating Hillary by the Dems be a statement by them that she is the best they can do, and the best woman they have? 69-70 year old Hillary?? Shall I run down the list of young, dynamic Republican women? I have said Hillary is out of the game entirely except for maybe a game-altering VP nod right now. (Not sure what Bill would think of that.)

If Bill or anyone else thinks that a Romney win may open the CinC door for Hillary in 2016, they are out of their minds, and living in the past.

edutcher said...

Since Joe came out for same sex marriage, he can't be dumped. The homosexuals love him more than the First Lesbian President and Choom has alienated too many Demo constituencies already.

PS Barry probably realizes his back would be one big target if Hillary was his running mate.

That business of, "keep your enemies closer", only works on HBO.

pm317 said...

@David, they , both Rs and Obama Dims, pick the worst picture of her and I sometimes wonder if they even photoshop it for worse effects.

She absolutely looks gorgeous in this picture. This is from her trip to Norway, Sweden this week.

deborah said...

pm317:

Hillary 2016 is very iffy even for this ardent Hillary supporter. She is not getting younger and in this youth obsessed (and sexist) society, it is difficult to see her winning only on merits in 2016.

She may be going for the mature stateswoman look, a la Thatcher and Albright. She could go gray and have mild cosmetic surgery to firm her up, and have the kind of beauty and gravitas that age instills. I find it hard to believe she doesn't know her long hair is inappropriate for her look, and see it as a tactic to come back looking great.

madAsHell said...

I can't imagine what motivates the Clintons. All the boxes are checked. Sit back and enjoy the sunset....unless he's a still searching for what the meaning of is is.

deborah said...

She absolutely looks gorgeous in this picture. This is from her trip to Norway, Sweden this week.

I rest my case.

lemondog said...

Her best route the the White House is as VP. I think Bill Clinton is sending a subtle message to Obama. One that Obama is too stupid to notice.

Romney and Hillary.

Repub, Dem......who really cares.....power **snarl** is power.

Hillary come 2016 is gonna look o-o-o-o-o-l-d.

Call it sexist all you like, America ain't gonna elect an old woman prez.


One word: stem cells.

OK, two words....

pm317 said...

Well, a nice and quite retirement is for people like the Bushes. If you have the intellect and the smarts to still contribute, why would you fade into the sunset? I am sure you want the Clintons gone but many of us long to see them work and still succeed.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I think, which means I'm guessing, that Clinton is seeing that 4 more years of Obama and the far far left agenda will condemn the Democrat party to being marginalized for decades to come. As more and more of the old style Democrats, blue collar workers and moderates flee from the party it will be impossible to pull back from this cliff that the Obama style politics is racing blindly toward.

As a Clinton (brand-name) and a power broker in the party, I think/guess that Clinton is working to gently and subliminally subvert the re-election of Obama. Sway the party back to moderation and keep his brand-name intact.

Now, whether it is to benefit Hillary or just to benefit the Party as a whole and maintain his relevance as a respected former President of a powerful party is hard to tell.

lemondog said...

< I am sure you want the Clintons gone but many of us long to see them work and still succeed.

Gone? Nope. Only the current occupant.

pm317 said...

But I have to agree with the Rs that the Ds have been unable to find the golden combination as Rs have -- women of good looks and smart articulation in the political arena. Hillary may have been it but she is growing old for this youth obsessed society.

pm317 said...

DBQ has it. Bill Clinton is trying to rescue the party. Obama created a trap for himself in 2008. He didn't go after the culprits of 08 crash but went after them in vague and abstract terms and demonized the finance industry and the Wall street but still got their cash. Having made them the bad guys, it was not easy for him to walk back and make 'business' a friendly concept. And now with Bain attacks he has veered himself into some ugly corner that he is taking the party with him and Dems already have a reputation of being unfriendly toward business and especially small business. So Bill Clinton to the rescue may be not of Obama but the party.

Rusty said...

Pm317

The funny thing is that whereever Bill goes Monica is right there with him.39

Bailey said...

Dems might figure why spend what Republicans are spending because Walker will be indicted soon anyway?

Hard to believe Wisconsin would reelect a governor under criminal investigation, but they appear to be a trusting bunch.

edutcher said...

Disagree with DBQ on Willie rescuing the Party.

First, he's almost as radical as Barry, he just had a better Svengali in Morris, who was in some touch with reality.

Second, the Demos are beyond redemption, at least for this cycle; maybe for a generation.

But Willie will do what he can so he can go around and schmooze with all those Democrat women who will throw their room keys and underwear at him because he makes them feel the way their mothers did when they switched on the vibrator and dreamed on Jack Kennedy.

pm317 said...

@Rusty,

I agree. That was the stupidest thing he did to hurt himself and I still can't see why he went there.

Dave said...

"Ann Althouse wrote ....Obama hasn't been cooperating with Republicans. He certainly hasn't used Republican power in Congress as a way to rack up credit for some conservative reform the way Bill Clinton did welfare reform."

Really? Actally, Obama's approach frustrated many on the left because he tried too hard to placate the right. Examples? Tax breaks - the least effective way to jump start an economy but a Republican favorite were a large part of the stimulus bill. Obamacare is what Republicans proposed in the 90's as an alternative to the Clinton plan. Despite pleading from the left no "public option" was included in the bill. And then he got suckered into negotiating the "grand bargain" with Boehner.

Obama campaigned on working to create bridges with the right. What he didn't count on was the opposition's willingness to put political ambition before the good of the country.

The report of high level Republicans meeting the night of Obama's inaguration to plan how to win back the white house at all costs are probably true. Mitch McConnell said that the most important thing was to make sure Obama's presidency failed. Look at your own blog - the constant berating of Liberals (also known as Nazi, Commie, Socialist and worse) mocking, sarcastic, vile comments that are the opposite of creative tension. How can one "cooperate" with people who take a budget in surplus, spend like drunken sailors for eight years, and then with the economy in shambles and bleeding jobs suddenly decide the number one priority is destroy the newly elected President?

Obama tried, he just naively thought the other side gave a damn.

gk1 said...

Oh boo hoo hoo Dave. Obama and Nancy Pelosi didn't over reach, they just didn't have any partners in socializing america.

Marshal said...

I remember those days of cooperation, with the left claiming Welfare Reform was a racist attempt to force black children and single mothers into homelessness. Good times. I bet most liberals remember it fondly as well. They were quite sure this proved their opponents racist, but even though they were dead wrong they nevertheless believe to this day their mistsaken belief proves their opponents racist.

Frankly I wonder how that anyone can believe any assertion by the left. Every single time they make a prediction which turns out testable they're dead wrong [welfare reform, the stimulus]. On the other hand the right's predictions which turn out testable are far more accurate[state regulation of tobacco would lead to state regulation of food intake, affirmative action would turn into racial discrimination]. The left survives only on the fear it generates, but their fearmongering is so atrociously ridiclous only complete fools could possibly believe it.

Hence the left's voting alliance: fools and those who live off the government.

Dave said...

Marshal - "Testable" assertions from the left are always wrong?

I know we won't agree on things like the stimulus or global climate change as there are experts on both sides. But since you said "always" - one very clear example comes to mind - Iraq.

Liberals in the U.S. said, Sadam Hussein was not a threat, the chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter kept saying there was no nuclear threat.... but the right was in lockstep with the "great" idea of invading Iraq based on a false threat of weapons of mass destruction.

We went in and "TESTED" that assertion and despite your claim that liberals are always wrong, they were right as was Ritter who, of course, actually had first had information and knew what he was talking about.

p.s. Your post includes a lot of absolute language (always, any, etc.) and falsehoods (there is no "state regulation of food intake" - limiting container size does not limit your ability to purchase as many as you want to consume) which weaken your argument.

Dave said...

"gk1 said...Oh boo hoo hoo Dave. didn't have any partners in socializing america."

Calling Obama a socialist is delusional. I think the primary "proof" cited for this assertion is Obamacare, but it's a conservative, market-based solution to the problem of our very inefficient health care delivery system. The "socialist" solution would be medicare for all without allowing private insurance company participation as they already have with Medicare. If mandating the purchase of insurance were socialist then every state that requires purchase of auto insurance is socialist.

And, by the way, the "mandate" can also be seen as a tax increase coupled to a tax credit with proof of insurance. You don't have to buy insurance, you just don't get the deduction.

Marshal said...

Dave,

Funny. Even given the simple standard of identifying one single instance you have failed. We didn't invade Iraq because we believed they had nuclear weapons.

And I love your dodge that limiting container size doesn't regulate intake. So why do it? Even ignoring that, do you have a similar dodge for the government outlawing the use of certain baking materials? Or is it your practice to select one event of many and pretend that one circumstance is all that exists?

We've seen from your earlier comments you're foolish and dishonest, it's not like your talking points will sway anyone. But please, amuse us.

jeff said...

"How can one "cooperate" with people who take a budget in surplus, spend like drunken sailors for eight years, and then with the economy in shambles and bleeding jobs suddenly decide the number one priority is destroy the newly elected President?

Obama tried, he just naively thought the other side gave a damn."

A impressively stupid statement. Any guesses which party was writing checks for the majority of the 90's? This mythical surplus you speak of, taking away social security deposits, how big was that again? There most definitely some drunken spending those eight years, and today somehow it now looks like fiscal discipline thanks to the Obama spending and non-budgets. I particularly enjoy the depiction of Republicans not rubber stamping the Obama agenda as destroying the new president. Especially after 8 years of slander and obstruction from the democratic party during the Bush years. The other side does give a damn, which is why they fight policies they oppose. And to portray otherwise is idiotic. I doubt if Obama actually believes that, I suspect he figures his weak minded supporters will. Which, in this case seems to be correct.

Dave said...

Marshal - We invaded Iraq because it was "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world". And "weapons of mass destruction" was the most cited reason in the build-up to the war.

But then again when liberals warned about the cost in lives, treasure and national reputation the response was; no problem, it won't cost anything (the oil will pay for it), and "Mission Accomplished" about 10 years before it was over.

You're right. (not to be confused with correct)

Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshal said...

Dave,

Do you deny Iraq under Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction?