When he and his administration were being frank about how bad the economy was, and how bad it could yet get, I read conservative sources lambaste him for not being positive enough on the economy, for not building confidence that would encourage investors to return.
Now that he and his administration are trying to be positive about the economy, both now and its potential for recovery, I read conservative sources mocking him for turning around on a dime and being a “Polyanna.”
Yeesh. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if that blogger who claimed that his approval ratings are below what Bush’s was at this time in his first administration is right. There are so many things out of his control stacked up against him (some of which are actual people) that it’s almost absurd.
(Now, I cannot say that the sources mentioned in the first paragraph and second paragraph are the same. And I can actually see a valid point to be made even if any were: that his message is unstable, and shows he has no clue how to talk with the American people when it comes to the economy. But I’m not sure they understand how difficult it is to balance the concern with being seen as “the Messiah who will fix everything” and the need to be realistic about where we are right now. I sure can’t figure it out, and I consider myself a pretty smart person.)
Oh. boo hoo. Every President get’s shit no matter what party or what he does or says. IMHO being very similar to George W. (in over his head) Obama is already getting off light!
First B.O., (Gawd I love those initials) starts talking malaise like Jimmy Carter did. Like Carter, B.O. inherited a bad economy ( and, like Carter, might make it worse. We’ll see, we’ll see) then he starts talking like Clinton (who, about 2 months after he was sworn in started talking about our “growing economy” as though everything was turned around already because of him).
If B.O.'s supporters can’t take him getting shit, then you all need to get out of politics.
To be fair, in March 1993 the economy was expanding, and continued to do so until 2001.
Of course, the period of expansion had started in 1991 so it’s not like Clinton deserves credit for starting it, but it seems a little harsh to diss him just for mentioning the acknowledged fact that the economy at the time was growing.
Well said, pkbites. Where were you with this message the past eight years?
Seriously, though, I suppose I could’ve just said “man, the President really can’t win, can he?” and been comfortably within reality, no matter when I posted. The particular contrast, though, amused me, so I posted about it. shrug
I made plenty of complaints (how many on these boards I know not. Do a search, would ya?) about the coronation of Prince George in 2000. After that, I know I made allegations against W. about wars that had no exit strategies.
Being a conservative with libertarian slants I often find the Republicans being the lesser of a kick in the nuts. But a kick in the nuts either way.
But I did NOT vote for John McCain nor B.O. in either the primary nor the General elections.
I’m skeptical that Bush was this scrutinized in his first few months in the office once the election was decided. I wasn’t so much into politics back then, but I never heard much about him until 9/11, when suddenly he took center stage and never left it.
I love the name calling; it makes it easy to filter out whose opinions aren’t worth paying attention to.
The Republicans have stated openly that their strategy is to consistently criticize the Democrats - “We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010.” “Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.” - both from Rep McHenry of NC. So be ready for a lot of these topics…!
The legitimacy of both of his elections were questioned right up until 2 seconds before I’ve posted this. As well was his intelligence was. And justifiably so. And you never "heard much about him until 9/11". Really? Fucking really? Really?
I saw a lot of venom and resentment over the “stolen” 2000 election, plus a lot of snide references to “Shrub” and “Chimp”. And there was disapproval in liberal circles about Bush’s immediate decree on the abortion “gag rule”, plus his push for tax cuts.
But I don’t think we saw this kind of hypervigilant “Oh NO, this guy can’t do ANYTHING right!!!” critique of every little thing Bush did back in March 2001. Maybe it would have been better if we had, though.
By the way, when I want to know what a presidential administration was really dealing with and what the major public-opinion issues were at some particular point in time, I like the archive of White House press secretary press briefings. The GWB ones are at
Here, for example, is what Ari Fleischer was talking to the press about on March 15, 2001:
Now, do you recall any of those issues being a focus of constant second-guessing and venomous critique of Bush at that time? I don’t. While there was certainly a lot of contempt and resentment of Bush as a person and a dislike of his general policy preferences, liberals in general weren’t rushing to proclaim his whole presidency already a completely misguided disaster, the way many conservatives seem to be trying to do about Obama.
Of course, to be fair, the situation two months after the end of the Clinton presidency didn’t seem anything like as disastrous and dangerous as it does two months after the end of the Bush presidency. I can understand why many people are watching national policy issues much more anxiously and critically now than they were eight years ago.
On the other hand, I think there’s also some deliberate opportunism on the part of some conservatives whose chief objective, as Rolken noted, is to “win the message war” by negative campaigning against Obama and the Democrats. The point for them is not to accomplish anything constructive with their criticism, the point is just to criticize.
No more juvenile than those who contemptuously referred to President Bush as shrub, drinky mcdumbass, schrub, idiot, chimpy mcflightsuit, moron, putz, Alfred Neuman, etc… Did I miss any?
And yet when Republicans asked for their opponents to stop using Shrub and the like in debates, from what I recall the opponents either did or lost credibility. I don’t recall many requests, either. Apparently y’all were just building up revenge credit or something so you could feel justified in calling the next Democratic president names.
So basically what you’re saying is, because there are Democrats who make fools of themselves, for you to behave in the same way is not making a fool of yourself?
Do I have that right? Because I’m pretty sure that the juvenile segments of both parties look juvenile, astonishing though the logic may be.
I seem to recall that right-wing version of The Daily Show (you know, the one that lasted about four episodes) got great (recorded) laughs with that observation.
