२७ ऑक्टोबर, २००८
"I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."
That's #112 on Jac's list of 120 "moments" from the 2008 campaign. (He's been putting these up over a number of weeks, and #100-120 just went up today.)
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
Saw a new Obama ad that showed that and then did a "McCain's Brain" version of McCain making faces while they played quotes of him saying he voted with Bush.
As most things Obama, it's not exactly honest, even if it was "McCain's Brain" funny.
Because McCain has voted with his party less than nearly anyone in his party and the "I voted with Bush" were generally "on this particular issue" and not at all some over-all support... but the "quotes" are true because they're quotes, even if taken out of context.
Obama, on the other hand, voted his party-line for the couple of years he's been a Senator more than anyone else in the Senate.
Between McCain and Bush, I'd say Obama took on the easier opponent.
Particularly since the opponent he chose isn't running this year.
It's funny. McCain is labeled as desperate and racist when he tries the guilt by association theme whereas Obama has based his entire campaign on it (with backing from the MSM). If people are really stupid enough to buy this crap sandwich from Barry, maybe we deserve what we get.
★★★★
"I want to cut that guy's nuts off."
[corrected ^^^, originally had 'im unitestacular]
"crap sandwich" makes me larf.
It transports me to that moment as a tot when I registered the horror on my mum's face when I proudly announced "We had a turd fight!"
The girl I liked across the street had a pony. We only tossed the dry ones at each other, us boys, the girl wasn't there. We had to cross the pasture to get to the creek. Perfectly rational from a boy's point of view.
Luch at McBarry's drivethru:
"You want fries with your crap sandwich".
Lefty Response: "Yes, supersize me please!"
Cassandra asks, "what about the famous "I am not a socialist speech?"
"People have got to know whether or not their President is a socialist. Well, I'm not a socialist. I've earned everything I've got."
Oh, wait, that hasn't happened yet.
#100 on his list is "The fundamentals of the economy are strong", which then links to a removed video.
What many people probably don't know - due to lies told to them by BHO and the MSM - is that McCain immediately then said - literally without a pause - "but, these are very very trying times". In fact, if you go to the WaPo page linked from the link above, you can hear the bad audio editing as they cut that off.
But, that's not the only thing about BHO that's like a copy of how the Soviet Union used to do things.
The BHO campaign is specifically targeting kids under 12 years old. He even wants them to influence their parents' political decisions.
Little glassy-eyed agents of "change".
Please send that link to every parent you can find.
Cindy told John to be nice. And as we all know nice is more important than handing our country over to a blatant black supremacist America hating commy thug. After all what could be more important than staying on the invitation lists of Wahington's A list hostesses? Nothing.
Why didn't Obama run 4 years ago?
What has he done in the last 4 years that would make him any better qualified to be President?
All he's done is add a credential, U.S. Senator, to his candidacy. So what has he done in four years as Senator that makes him a better candidate than 4 years ago?
I can't think of anything.
Yeah, and looks like Cindy also told Sarah to take W’s advice immediately after 911, that is, to show patriotism by going on a massive shopping spree instead of telling the truth about needing to pay more wartime taxes or buying bonds as acts of wartime sacrifice.
This current thread (“you should have run four years ago”) seems closely related to another recent thread asking how Republicans will re-group after this election?
The defensive sound-byte admired above – “you should have run against Bush four years ago” – is actually making substantive sense as the first step of Republican re-grouping.
I admired McCain’s nod to Theodore Roosevelt (debate 2) – “speak softly, but carry a big ....”
But then I asked, “yeah, a big what?”
In McCain’s case, “carry a big” – should have translated into carrying a bigger substantive platform. McCain could have noted that Roosevelt was spared death when Schrank tired to assassinate Roosevelt – because Roosevelt carried a big – big, whopping, big thick, 50 page political speech (plus his eye glass case), outlining the substance of his progressive cause - Roosevelt’s big speech stopped the bullet. It’s a good thing Roosevelt was packing some substance. Had Roosevelt gone clothes shopping instead of working on 50 pages of substance that day, he may have died.
"...50 page political speech (plus his eye glass case), outlining the substance of his progressive cause - Roosevelt’s big speech stopped the bullet. It’s a good thing Roosevelt was packing some substance. Had Roosevelt gone clothes shopping instead of working on 50 pages of substance that day, he may have died."
If he could walk around with the IRS Code he could stop a tactical nuke.
ahhhh yes dear Geo-p'ers...at the end of this wonderous day, GWB will be drinking again down on the ranch, Darth Vader will stunt for Faux Noise, Mr. McCain will be hubida hubida'ing through the winter desert and squirrel girl will be on some ice flow.
and Obama will be president and the country will be safe.
Ya'betcha!
telling the truth about needing to pay more wartime taxes or buying bonds as acts of wartime sacrifice.
Um... Earth to Dumbass: "buying bonds" is exactly what we're doing right now. That's what deficit spending IS. Lefties have been bitching for seven YEARS about how we're funding this war with bonds. For you to now promote wartime deficit spending as an act of patriotism is truly amusing. By that standard, the Republicans who pushed for deficit spending and the American investors who bought up most of the issued debt are the true patriots here.
Bush has been laughed and jeered at for seven years for his urging people to shop and spend after 9/11 — but it seems perfectly clear that that was indeed good advice. One of Al Qaeda's explicit goals in striking at the twin towers was to do immense harm to the American economy. Hundreds of billions of dollars damage was done in that attack. The center of New York City was a smoking hole. No airlines flew for months. The dot-com bubble had burst only a few months before. If Bush had raised taxes and exhorted people to sacrifice, the end result probably would have been a severe recession or even depression. Because the people of this country did continue to spend-spend-spend, that recession was avoided — giving folks seven years of latitude to laugh at Bush.
McCain is the only politician still standing that actually ran against Bush.
Trey
– Michael,
Fair enough on shopping sprees as a form of citizen counterinsurgency against “one of Al Qaeda's explicit goals” in 9/11.
Your response went closer to the heart of my post (which was about telling the truth about the costs) when you responded - “if Bush had raised taxes and exhorted people to sacrifice, the end result probably would have been a severe recession or even depression.”
Okay, let’s assume that Bush was shrewd enough to shift the risks of the costs of war away from romanticized versions of willing wartime altruism and self-sacrifice tendered by previous presidents, and that Bush hoped that spending on butter rather than on guns would butter up the economy against a calculated “severe recession or even depression.”
In that case, Bush miscalculated more seriously than GM in building SUV’s, blind to rising gas prices. Maybe a forgivable mistake, lacking omniscience. Maybe not.
Because a “severe recession or even depression” (your words) is pretty much where we’ve ended up.
Thanks though, for stopping short of pinning on me the tail of the Republican (not just Dems) donkeys in the crowd you identified – “Bush has been laughed and jeered at for seven years for his urging people to shop and spend after 9/11.”
I’d have voted for McCain over Bush in the last round: as in this one. Which is why McCain’s quip to Obama (“you should have run against Bush four years ago”) makes more substantive sense applied to McCain than to Obama -- as if McCain didn’t know McCain would run this race. Or at least have four years to prepare a platform that reached closer into truth-telling about the sacrifices of war than Bush’s hedging (see your analysis) got us, that is, our current “severe recession or even depression.”
I don’t know whether the polls in the turbulence (multiple issues: war, economy, etc) of this election are factored by a positive or negative “Bradley effect,” so that voters aren’t telling the truth to pollsters about their current biases, but a landslide vote for Obama could (could: not will) end up looking more like a line item veto by the American tax payers against the war, precisely because we really aren’t going to shop our way out of this one.
Especially if what you wrote is correct, then what you're really saying is that the truth about sacrificing for this war isn’t strong enough motivation to make us buy it.
Who the hell is Jac and why is he the judge of the best moments?
What's funny about this is the GOP weren't the only politicians siding with the Bush Administration. Some of the left-wing illuminati also did, but they're not owning up to it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा