"Dubya was a pretty bad president. Obama is a significantly worse president. Clear enough?"
How can you tell the difference? They're essentially the same President, with only a superficial difference of personal style and temperament, which is mere window dressing. They're both mass murderers, torturers, war criminals, and servants to Wall Street.
They're essentially the same President, with only a superficial difference of personal style and temperament, which is mere window dressing. They're both mass murderers, torturers, war criminals, and servants to Wall Street.
From Cook's standpoint ObamaReidPelosiCare and Porkulus Sr. (along with further initiatives that have been unsuccessful so far, such as Cap and Trade and Porkulus Jr.) don't prevent Barack Obama from being "essentially the same President" as Dubya Bush.
From Cook's standpoint Obama's Supreme Court nominees make him "essentially the same President" as Dubya.
From Cook's standpoint Obama's insistence on raising taxes makes him "essentially the same President" as Dubya.
From Cook's standpoint the pace of Federal borrowing under Obama makes him "essentially the same President" as Dubya.
What, from Cook's standpoint, would Obama have to do to make him a significant improvement over Dubya?
I guess he was convinced of the need for the bank bailouts because Bush said the cost of NOT doing so would be very great:
That's the story you're sticking with? Democrats believed the bailouts were necessary because Bush, with his single-digit approval rating among Democrats, gave a speech saying so?
That's the rhetorical hill you've chosen to die on, is it? Interesting.
Minor question -- why weren't the *Republicans* convinced by Bush's speech? Did he slip them a note beforehand saying something like "ok check this out, I'm totally fooling the Democrats with this one"? And if so, why did nobody slip a copy of the note to McCain, so he could avoid embarrassing himself by joining the Obama campaign's demand that TARP be passed? :)
Click here to enter Amazon through the Althouse Portal.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
२०३ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 203 पैकी 201 – 203"Dubya was a pretty bad president. Obama is a significantly worse president. Clear enough?"
How can you tell the difference? They're essentially the same President, with only a superficial difference of personal style and temperament, which is mere window dressing. They're both mass murderers, torturers, war criminals, and servants to Wall Street.
They're essentially the same President, with only a superficial difference of personal style and temperament, which is mere window dressing. They're both mass murderers, torturers, war criminals, and servants to Wall Street.
From Cook's standpoint ObamaReidPelosiCare and Porkulus Sr. (along with further initiatives that have been unsuccessful so far, such as Cap and Trade and Porkulus Jr.) don't prevent Barack Obama from being "essentially the same President" as Dubya Bush.
From Cook's standpoint Obama's Supreme Court nominees make him "essentially the same President" as Dubya.
From Cook's standpoint Obama's insistence on raising taxes makes him "essentially the same President" as Dubya.
From Cook's standpoint the pace of Federal borrowing under Obama makes him "essentially the same President" as Dubya.
What, from Cook's standpoint, would Obama have to do to make him a significant improvement over Dubya?
I guess he was convinced of the need for the bank bailouts because Bush said the cost of NOT doing so would be very great:
That's the story you're sticking with? Democrats believed the bailouts were necessary because Bush, with his single-digit approval rating among Democrats, gave a speech saying so?
That's the rhetorical hill you've chosen to die on, is it? Interesting.
Minor question -- why weren't the *Republicans* convinced by Bush's speech? Did he slip them a note beforehand saying something like "ok check this out, I'm totally fooling the Democrats with this one"? And if so, why did nobody slip a copy of the note to McCain, so he could avoid embarrassing himself by joining the Obama campaign's demand that TARP be passed? :)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा