Overwhelming Majority Still Blame Bush For Economic Problems
Tweet
Oh my God America, still blaming Bush? It’s like people haven’t listened to con efforts to disappear the last eight years.
Nearly two years after Barack Obama was elected president, Americans still are inclined to blame his predecessor for the nation’s current economic problems.
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than a third of those surveyed said George W. Bush deserved a great deal of the blame for economic woes and a third said he should get a moderate amount of it. Not quite another third called that unfair, saying he warranted not much or none of the responsibility.
The 71% saying Bush should get blamed was a modest decline from the 80% who felt that way about a year ago, in July 2009.
Miss me? Oh, hell no.
35 Responses to “Overwhelming Majority Still Blame Bush For Economic Problems”
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“BAH, YOU AND YER LEFTIST MEDIA! WE GONNA SHOW YOU COME NOVEMBER! YOU BETCHA! SNORT SNORT SNORT” -cons
Since we’re talking polls: Bush 50, Obama 42
Yup SF…if McCain can’t get that uppity n**g*r out of office come November Bush will! You betcha!
Since we’re talking polls: Bush 50, Obama 42
Farris, how can it possibly be true that Obama would be trailing someone liberals seem certain was the Worst President Ever by that much in a state like Ohio?
That poll must be an outlander or something. Surely.
——————-
Yup SF…if McCain can’t get that uppity n**g*r out of office come November Bush will! You betcha!– durablend
What is it about that word that you guys love seeing it in print so much?
The Hate is strong with this one.
“Farris, how can it possibly be true that Obama would be trailing someone liberals seem certain was the Worst President Ever by that much in a state like Ohio?”
Well, the way it would work, Dennis, would be that there aren’t a lot of liberals in Ohio. Does that make sense?
Well, the way it would work, Dennis, would be that there aren’t a lot of liberals in Ohio.
voted for Obama in 2008
Democrat Governor
Democrat Lt. Governor
Democrat Attorney General
Democrat Secretary of State
Democrat Treasurer
1 Democrat Senator (the Republican is retiring)
10 Democrat House Members (vs. 8 Republican)
53 Democrat State House Members (vs. 46 Republican)
Democrat Mayor of Cleveland (as well as the 9 other most populous cities)
Why, Ohio is just Utah East!
I met a nice family from Ohio a couple weeks ago. All any of them really cared about politically, was jobs. They said everybody they know in Ohio has been underemployed or worse, throughout all the ought years (Obama AND Bush, wingnuts), since manufacturing and now tech is going away. Retraining leads people nowhere lasting, especially if they’re over 40. They were hopeful with Bush, then with Obama. They made it sound like most people in Ohio are now political independants due to cynicism and desperation.
They say: “Trickle down economics only winds up in India, and we’re rebuilding an infrastructure for what?”
Seriously, Republicans better have more than “lower taxes” and “Blame Liberal” and “Take our country back to Bush”, or the political cycle will only repeat itself until these people outright revolt.
The Hate is strong with this one.
Ah, I see that flew right over your head much like 99% of the stuff everyone writes here
Nothing you wrote flew over anyone’s head, durablend. So why do you enjoy writing that word so much here?
Dennis, you can smell the sweat coming off the Democrats. Who is to blame for our economic ills is not nearly as important as who is more likely to fix it – and that is not Pres Obama or the Democrats. You got your bazillion dollar slush fund, and it didn’t accomplish squat.
Now let’s try giving the people their money back and see how that works.
Liberalism belongs in the dustbin of history, right behind its muscular cousin, communism, and the sooner the better.
Hmmmm. Lots of cocky crowing from our rightwing brethren here. Is that the sickly smell of hubris I sense?
I’ll just repeat a observation I made here earlier this year:
Frank,
1. The Founders were liberals.
2. The current tax rates are lowest they’ve been since the Depression. But why stop there?
I didn’t realize you were an anarchist.
2009-10: Obama’s first year fails to produce immediate miracles. Ruthless republicans pounce, weak-willed democrats wring their hands.–Wilbur-r-r
You repeated the 1993-4 and 2009-10 scenarios, Wilbur. Does this mean with your prediction you are conceding the House and Senate to the Republicans at this point?
And are you saying Obama turns way, way right, which for him is light years away from where Clinton was in at this stage?
And do you think Obama will become embroiled in scandal after scandal due to lies, cover-ups, ill-advised dalliances with large-boned, beret-wearing barely-legal Jewish girls, and serial gropings?
Ok, let’s be honest about the current mess, it was caused by inept management, unaccountable boards of directors and federal regulators not just asleep, but comatose, at the wheel.
As far as the housing mess, anyone who bought a house after 2003 deserves what they got for not doing any research.
When property basically doubled in 3 years it was apparent to anyone with half a brain that the housing market was an overinflated a bubble waiting to explode.
I am still holding off buying because I don’t believe the market has bottomed put yet.
You repeated the 1993-4 and 2009-10 scenarios, Wilbur. Does this mean with your prediction you are conceding the House and Senate to the Republicans at this point?
Not conceding anything, Dennis. That’s why I put ???? in the 2010-12 spot. What I’m saying is that if the Republicans do regain control of congress (worst case scenario) the completely predictable and inevitable result will be that they will quickly remind people why they voted them out in the first place.
Particularly if they pimp the same discredited horse-and-sparrow economics, as Frank seems to want them to do.
Wilburrr–
But that will just be a confirmation that people have regained their senses as to just why in God’s name they ever allowed Dems to have control of the White House, the House and a super-majority in the Senate in the first place. They’re thinking that maybe giving the Dems the WH and Repub the House and Senate and the Supreme Court is not such a bad compromise as it seemed to work all right back in 1994-2000.
Then all we’d have to do is hope for is a dot-com boom and rising house prices and we’ll be golden again, for a few years anyway. And around and around we’ll go.
Not to mention this year’s republicans are on average much loonier than 1994′s. There’s plenty of throw-the-bums-out anger that may sweep more republicans into office than is normal in off-year elections, but the public would quickly tire of the clownshow that a bachmannette-birfer-beckitarian dominated congress would become. Remember that however low Rasmussen is putting Obama’s approval numbers, the current republicans in congress are even lower, and the teabag dingdongs aren’t going to score any higher. At this point I like Obama’s chances a lot in 2012, even though I’m one of the ones who would say, if a pollster ever asked, that I don’t completely approve of his job performance so far. Even in the 40′s Obama’s approval rating is surprisingly high given the sluggishness of the recovery and the persistent level of unemployment.
Timmy: The Founders were Enlightenment Era liberals, not post New Deal big government liberals.
Quick, without looking it up, how many Cabinet posts were there in the first Presidencies? How many are there now (so many that you need a quick run to WikiPedia)?
I am a social conservative of the Russell Kirk variety, not an anarchist.
My political 8-Ball says, “All signs point to big Republican victory in 2010″, and “Bye bye Obambi in 2012.”
As Oliver has pointed out from time to time, you made the same predictions about Democrats getting defeated in 2006 and 2008, are you trying for the trifecta, Frank Deodorant Spray?
If so, good luck.
“My political 8-Ball says, “All signs point to big Republican victory in 2010″, and “Bye bye Obambi in 2012.””
Wow — your political 8-Ball is as corny as you are. obambi? really? Like, what the fuck does that even mean?
Can we all agree that the right should really just leave humor to the left?
Frank, technology and population leverages concentrations of power. You cannot check and balance them with magical rhetoric. I am not sure how well the Founders could have foreseen this.
IMO, conservatism has been hijacked by very clever and powerful special interests which want you to believe that greed, corruption and stupidity is the sole domain of the black-masked cartoon bandit… like Muslims. If these people really cared about America, they’d be growing the American economy and not just China’s and covering up with a smokescreen of false constitutionalist ideology. They’ll fund think tanks, lobbying, spin doctor and astroturf organizations to achieve a weak public / strong private “republic” which covertly concentrates power in the hands of the few. It wouldn’t surprise me if they envy the situation Iran is in, with a weak “republic” which is actually owned and operated by a “God inspired” supreme leadership.
The New Deal was an attempt to prevent this.
Social conservative? True social conservatism is not a bad thing. Improved ethics and morality reduces the need for authoritative controls and ultimately less taxes. But I see modern social conservatism as part of the plutocratic ruse.
Reduced taxes for the wealthy? Done!
But abortions, gay marriage, war on drugs, war on terror, illegal immigration, virtually unlimited pornography, public morality, premarital sex, family values… Uh, we’re working on it. Always working on it. Blame the liberals.
Frank, like so many others predicting a Republican resurgence, forget that “Not Obama” does not appear on the ballot.
Before the Republicans can win, they have to offer voters a candidate to vote for. In one race after another, they’re not able to do so. Check out what’s happening to Tea Party favorite Dan Maes in the Colorado governor’s contest or Sharron Angle in the Nevada Senate race.
Yes, the GOP has an opportunity for big gains. In many cases, they’re trying their best to throw that opportunity away.
Frank DiSalle: Now let’s try giving the people their money back and see how that works.
I’m not saying that’s the answer. But it it were, why do you thing Republicans would do it?
What in their history has suggested Republicans, exploding deficit Republicans, growing government faster than Democrats Republicans, cut programs that help (i.e., effectively “give money back to”) the lower economic classes while cutting taxes for the rich Republicans, that THOSE Republicans would do anything the “gives people their money back”?
Sean, Sean, Sean.
Haven’t you figured it out yet? When Republicans say “give the people their money back,” they don’t mean all the people. They mean the rich people.
Yeah. I figured that out long ago. I’m just looking to see if Frank’s figured out the blatantly obvious yet, also.
Quick, without looking it up, how many Cabinet posts were there in the first Presidencies?
Yeah, totally. Cuz the same organization that managed a rural, agrarian economy of 3.9 million people in 1790 could clearly handle the demands of a global industrial, financial and service-oriented super power with 300 million people in 2010.
Franks idol, Russell Kirk, didn’t like cars, televisions, computers, large universities and neocons. Go figure.
Maybe if I had the means, I’d build a live-in amusement park where conservatives could engage in their wildest fantasies of simple pleasures, family chapels and puritan chaste. I’d call it, “Little Homes on the Prairie World”.
Cuz the same organization that managed a rural, agrarian economy of 3.9 million people in 1790 could clearly handle the demands of a global industrial, financial and service-oriented super power with 300 million people in 2010.
That’s what they’ve been trying to tell you, man!
Timmy, I didn’t call Russell Kirk my idol – you did. His personal likes and likes do not appear in his tenets, so you apparently have learned more about him (from WikiPedia, I suppose) than I know.
I have no desire to live in the 19th Century – I have had my electricity turned off, so I have a feel for it.
As for mambo and fafaroo, why don’t you stop trying to be so freakin’ clever, and make a cogent argument?
Follow the goddam thread : Timmy said the Founding Fathers were liberals … I pointed out that they obviously favored more personal freedom and limited government, and you two as*holes are compelled to remind me that America has gone through an Industrial Revolution, and its population has increased.
Two peabrains in a pod.
Now, let’s see if you can put two brain cells together, and explain why that means we need to be a left leaning experiment in socialism. Conservatism does not involve time travel – it basically involves two ideas : 1) Some things that were right, continue to be right; and 2) All change is not good, per se.
1) Some things that were right, continue to be right;
You mean like racism and homophobia?
Frank, I will admit that your VERY concise definition of conservative does hold some accuracy, the problem is that they’re always wrong time and time again.
Who is to blame for our economic ills is not nearly as important as who is more likely to fix it – and that is not Pres Obama or the Democrats.
Even if this were true, why the hell should we trust the people who broke it in the first place?
And do you think Obama will become embroiled in scandal after scandal due to lies, cover-ups, ill-advised dalliances with large-boned, beret-wearing barely-legal Jewish girls, and serial gropings?
Dennis, just because you don’t have sex doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t. Learn to accept that.
I pointed out that they obviously favored more personal freedom and limited government, and you two as*holes are compelled to remind me that America has gone through an Industrial Revolution, and its population has increased.
Two peabrains in a pod.
Bear with me on this one, Frank, because I’m going to explain to you why you’re a complete fucking moron.
You believe that the Founding Fathers favored “a limited government.” Great. Wonderful. Nothing wrong with that if it’s actually true. There are a lot of different ways you could go about proving this.
Of course, you could not quote the actual Constitution which says nothing about limiting the number of executive departments and/or cabinet members. So even if the founding fathers favored limited government, they didn’t see fit to actually limit the number of executive departments and hence cabinet members in the document they wrote to govern the country. Why? Probably because they realized that even if they disapproved of a large government apparatus, they were smart enough to realize that the size of the government was relative the size of the country and that maybe what looked big in 1790 wouldn’t look so big in oh, say, 2010. Apparently, they had high hopes of the country being a rousing a success.
So you couldn’t quote the actual Constitution to prove your point, but you could quote the founding fathers themselves in other contexts talking about their philosophies of government and the dangers of big government etc. etc.
But you didn’t. You went with this:
Timmy: The Founders were Enlightenment Era liberals, not post New Deal big government liberals.
Quick, without looking it up, how many Cabinet posts were there in the first Presidencies? How many are there now (so many that you need a quick run to WikiPedia)?
Now, Frank, the answer to this question (eight at the end of Washington’s term) does not at all support your claim that the founder’s favored limited government. Not in the least bit. At all. In fact, this is the stupidest fucking argument one could possibly try to make to support the claim that the founding father’s favored limited government because the country was entirely different during Washington’s presidency, and it was significantyly, much, much, much, much, much smaller. And, yet, that’s the “proof” you went with.
The question is why? Well, allow me to tell you.
Because at some point along the way, you heard a talking point that lodged in your brain because it sort of sounded like it made sense if you didn’t really think about it at all. It went something like this: “The Founding Fathers favored limited government because Washington only had eight cabinet members and now there’s like a million or something because of the socialist democrats.”
It seems to make sense but if you think about it for longer than two fucking seconds, or, as you would put it, “put two brain cells together,” it doesn’t prove the point in any way whatsoever.
TFJ for fafaroo.
Seconded!
One of the more powerful arguments that the founders believed in limited government is that they were ambivalent to a large standing army in peacetime. However, the modern “conservative” caterwalls everytime a Democrat tries to limit the size or budget of our military forces.
The founders are like gods to cons- anything a con is for, they say the founders were for.