You might want to read the link in Post 62 and reevaluate, as some of your thinking around this issue is wrong.
Not that I expect you will.
And how exactly does this address the problem? Look, I get it, you hate Conservatives and you hate Bush. Does that have to make you blind to anything the current administration does? Are you so partisan that the current administration can do ANYTHING and you will find a way to defend it? Is it so hard to admit that Obama personally enodrsed this venture, it was the wrong thing to do and quite possibly was done as a political favor instead of a sound investment?
Your views would carry a lot more weight if you actually called out your guy when he screws up. The whole “But Bush did it” is getting old. Either your Obama is Presidential material or he isn’t. If he is then he has to take the blame when he screws up.
It actually does make a pretty huge difference where solar technology is developed in determining where the solar industry will form and that will determine where all the dollars that used to go to oil will be diverted to.
This. When does the Statute of Limitations run on blaming former Presidents? I mean, in 2040 are we going to hear about how Democratic Presidents have ruled for the last 32 years of mayhem and runaway unemployment, but it was all Bush’s fault?
Personally, I blame John Adams. This country hasn’t recovered from the Alien and Sedition Acts.
It took Bush 8 years to make this mess, so Obama should get 8 years to blame things on him. Common sense.
What obbn is complaining about is justifying things Obama does by pointing out that Bush did them, and the timer on that runs out the first day. However, calling people out for complaining about things Obama does despite not caring when Bush did them is perfectly kosher - for ever.
Because Bush wanted to make Ken Lay his fucking Treasury Secretary. Enron was a huge theft and everybody was being lied to by Lay and his staff. They had spent years creating a financial disaster. But he was deep inside the righties and the government. That was a disaster.
Obama meant well. He actually tried to increase hiring and help develop a new industry. It was a half trillion. Sometimes businesses fail . But it was not a lying fiasco like Enron. The fund was set up to invest in green industries. Obama invested in it and it failed.
I don’t see how that case is a determining factor in whether Obama is presidential or not
I was unhappy with his reliance on Goldman people for government positions and for paying the thieving bankers 100 percent. I thought he handled the crisis with kid gloves instead of prosecuting the shit out of them. I was offended when he allowed the heads of the banks to get their usual bonuses from tax money after they failed miserably at their jobs. He was tough on the managers of the auto companies. But not the banking crooks. That has stuck with me ever since. Obama has been a disappointment in many ways. But Bush was a major league disaster.
Not long after his election and his banking moves went on, I started a pitting against his policies. Most thought I was unfair and it was too soon.
See, this is where you are 100% wrong. When Bush was in office there were plenty of things I took issue with. Unfortunately this was way before I found SD, so can’t give you an example. The point I am making is that it doesn’t matter what Bush, Carter, Lincoln or Washington did. They aren’t in office any longer and they aren’t controlling things. The only person who is responsible for the current decisions being made is the person who is currently in office. Blaming someone else shows a lack of maturity and an unwillingness to take responsibility. I sure wish I had someone to blame in life for all of my mistakes and failures.
Bush is not responsible for the Solyndra scandal. Obama is.
The notion that "it’s Bush’s fault that we granted loans to a company that he turned down’ is more than mildly ridiculous. The companies in question were made a centerpiece of the Obama approach to the economy. If Obama is going to point to the company and tell us how it is an example of how his approach is going to create lots of green jobs, and then the company goes under and we lose a thousand jobs, it is not legitimate to blame it on Bush. Bush did the opposite of what Obama did in this case - the Bush administration turned it down, the Obama administration granted it. See the difference?
Certainly if TARP had turned out to be a huge loss for the country, instead of costing less than $25B, it would have been entirely appropriate to blame the failure on Bush. TARP was his baby. But TARP more or less succeeded, and Solyndra failed. So we hold the prime movers responsible, for failure or success, in each case.
At least, I do.
Regards,
Shodan
Solyndra is not a big deal. Like I said earlier it will be jumped all over it by dead head rightys who are squirting in their jeans over a chance to scream at Obama. It is fading already and gets very little press. It is a lot of noise about nothing. (i don’t watch Fox, it may be a big deal there).
The roughest treatment Obama received over it was by the Daly Show. A slightly left leaning show.
There, there, gonzo - I am sure if all the good little boys and girls who believe in fairies will clap their hands, all the mean ol’ facts will all go away.
Sure, sure - what’s a half a billion dollars and a thousand jobs, anyway?
Regards,
Shodan
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) seems to want to have it both ways:
But he didn’t feel that way in 2009:
That made me laugh out loud. Shredding Bush was quite the sport when he was in office.
There’s no innuendo that Obama used this company as a backdrop for his pet projects nor is it innuendo that he wished to do so again or that it went down in flames soon after the loan was approved. He wanted to showcase the spending of $535 million dollars of tax money to prop up 1000 jobs. Since he wanted to showcase it, consider it showcased.
People who’ve been unemployed for YEARS are tired of watching tax money thrown down a rat hole. $535,000 per job for a year is the legacy of what was suppose to be a win for President Obama.
It doesn’t matter if you personally complained about Bush or not. The point is that the people now complaining about Obama generally didn’t.
Arguing in terms of absolutes shows a lack of maturity and an unwillingness to accept reality. I’d like very much to hear how, say, the Iraq war is Obama’s fault. After all, we’re not allowed to blame Bush.
That doesn’t mean everything can be blamed on Bush, of course, but lots of things can and should be.
If only there was a giant database of information that we could search through and see what Senator Obama said about troop withdrawal. “remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008”.
And what did President Bush propose? “to deploy an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to curtail an increasingly virulent insurgency.”
And what was President Obama’s plan after taking office? “Send 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan.”
So either Senator Obama was a clueless git pulling promises out of his ass or he was lying to garner votes from his base.
How is offering legislation to withdrawal from Iraq, then deploying troops to Afghanistan, a “lie”?
Obama the candidate explicitly said he would increase troops in Afghanistan.
because they are the opposite of each other.
It doesn’t matter what WASHINGTON did? WTF? 
Washington defeated the British, and was present at the creation of the US Constitution. He’s practically Captain America (more like General America). Every president thereafter has been rather important in their own ways. One could say they mold reality itself, whether you like it or not! Subsequent Presidents always inhabit the milieux of their predecesors.
Please explain further, because your comment seems moronic.
Iraq and Afghanistan are different countries. We just happen[ed] to be dropping bombs on both.
Weird, innit?