Quote of the Day

"If you see me in an airport, I hope you wave with all five fingers, but if you don't you won't be the first," (George W.) Bush said. "I'm a comfortable guy."

When Your Qualifications Are Suspect...

Presidential Scholars: Obama Is Our 15th Best President -- Bush Is In The Bottom Five

...You can expect no other results.

From Hot Air:

The One came eighth overall in intelligence, right ahead of Billy Jeff, and sixth overall in the category of, ummm, “imagination.” Reagan finished fifth overall in terms of communication abilities (two spots ahead of Obama) and third in “luck,” which I can only take to be a thinly veiled judgment that the demise of the U.S.S.R. after he left office is more coincidence than cause and effect. He also gets the “amiable dunce” treatment, placing 36 out of 43 in intelligence. But don’t take it to heart. This is obviously a poll of lefty academics, with only one Republican from the 20th century (Eisenhower) appearing in the top 15. How ridiculous is it? Number one in the category of “handling the economy” is … FDR. Somewhere, Amity Shlaes is smiling.

From Jules Crittenden:

Is there nothing he can’t do? Less than 2 years in, the Nobel peace laureate is now the 15th best president, according to historians, who like the Norwegian Nobel Committee apparently haven’t noticed that aside from getting elected, he hasn’t exactly committed much peace or history or anything else yet. Unless you count the record deficit, the haphazard politically driven Rube Goldberg re-ordering of the economy with as-yet unknown consequences, the blithe alienating of key allies and the yawning at Islamic terrorism … and I do. They forgot to note that among the things he inherited was George W. Bush’s war strategy and George W. Bush’s victorious general, with hopes of inheriting some of his success in that department.

I would argue that George W. Bush was the compromiser-in-chief, giving Democrats No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold and an amnesty bill. Teh One has given Republicans...nothing. But let's not fool ourselves what this poll was about. There just hasn't been enough Bush-bashing lately.

Understanding the Obama Economy

From National Review:

Since the beginning of the recession (roughly January 2008), some 7.9 million jobs were lost in the private sector while 590,000 jobs were gained in the public one. And since the passage of the stimulus bill (February 2009), over 2.6 million private jobs were lost, but the government workforce grew by 400,000.

It's important to remember who pays for those government jobs. It's the millions of Americans who used to have private sector jobs and now don't.

Comparing a President to Hitler Is OK...

Except when it's your guy.

And on Tuesday Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) took it to a new level as he approvingly quoted an article that likened the Obama administration's success in getting BP to set up a $20 billion escrow account to assist Gulf coast residents to something that Adolf Hitler would have done...

A perfectly reasonable comparison. One man pressures an oil company to compensate the victims of an oil spill and another is responsible for a world war and the murder of millions of people. In fact, someone owes Hitler an apology here.

I'll admit it's a ridiculous comparison, but so was all this. And somehow, I'll bet Barbara Morrill wasn't writing about how terrible those comparisons were.

Why Is It Violence Only Happens During Democratic Administrations?

Leftwingers are harranging again that life is always peaceful during evil Republican administrations but violent rightwingers burst on the scene during Democratic regimes. This, of course, is nonsense, as Kathleen McKinney points out.

I'm not defending nutcases who want to assassinate Barack Obama, but I still remember the nutroots dismissing out of hand any violent talk from the left directed at George W. Bush as "letting off steam" or something close to it. Really? Writing films fantasizing about assassinating the president wasn't deplorable? (Pandora at Delaware Liberal argued that "only one" novel with this fantasy came out, so it was ok). Hanging GWB in effigy, painting him as Hitler or Satan was just "patriotic speech."

Now, we're seeing any anti-government violence portrayed as anti-Obama violence, which is patently false. The twerp who flew his airplane into the IRS building in Austin was not a conservative (he was strident in his condemnation of President Bush), and yet liberals in the MSM and blogosphere have tried desperately to tie him to the GOP. Such behavior is unseemly and pathetic. Yes, there are anti-government people in every administration. Just because you don't mind it when your guy isn't president doesn't make it acceptable.

UPDATE: Let's not forget this laundry list of recent leftwing violence.

Laura Bush: Liberalism's Favorite Conservative...

As long as she's supporting issues with which they agree.

Oh what a difference a few years or a different topic makes. Of course, there are still jerks complaining that Laura Bush should have pulled a Hillary and tried to run domestic policy (or something), which would have gone over really well with liberals who thought she, too, was the spawn of Satan until this week.

It's so hard to take these hypocrites seriously. First, they complained that Laura Bush was a Stepford Wife, a murderer, an enabler (pick your favorite alcoholic allusion here) and more. Now, because she's come out in favor of their cause du jour, she's completely huggable!

Or maybe not. The latest I've read is complaints that she should have "done something" for abortion and homosexuals. And my question is what? Have a tea? Give a presser? We don't elect First Ladies. It's, at best, a figurehead position because since Eleanor Roosevelt, we've decided that the women presidents are attached to have to be involved in something or other to show how good and caring and informed they are (and, by extension, the men they are married to).

It's all nonsense and can be more harmful than good. We nearly had Hillarycare, for crying out loud, and "two for the price of one," which deeply disturbed anyone who cared about the Constitution and electoral process. We watched Roslynn Carter direct Jimmeh, we heard complaints about Nancy Reagan's psychics, we've noted Barbara Bush's grandmotherly charm but heard rumors of her coldness to her chirren. In this presidency, we've watched Michelle Obama go to help the poor in pricey footwear.

I guess the point I'm making is that First Ladies are just women married to the president. We don't get to know their political views because they haven't been elected to anything and their views are no more important than my next door neighbor's or the local gas station attendant. I don't really care if Laura Bush supports abortion--she has that right--but I'd be infuriated if I elected her pro-life husband only to have her change his mind about issues I care about. I understand that pro-abortion and gay marriage supporters wanted her to change his mind, but that's precisely why First Ladies aren't supposed to speak out about issues while their hubbies are in office. But it is fairly entertaining watching the same people who excoriated her for eight years now clapping wildly that she secretly supported something they like.

More Free Speech: The First Anti-Obama Movie

Oh, there may have been something done before, but this is the first I've seen of one.

A New Jersey judge-cum-filmmaker has chosen to step down from the bench rather than abide by a dictum from state judicial authorities that he not publicize his satirical movie painting President Obama as a modern-day Faust...

The film is about a cocaine-snorting college student who makes a deal to deliver millions of souls to Satan. The main character, played by Del Vecchio, goes on to attend Harvard Law School, work as a community organizer and win the White House. The title's initials stand for "Occidental Births a Monster," a reference to the college Obama attended for a short time.

Not quite as stirring as an assassination fantasy, but a good start to exposing Democrats to the ridicule they thought appropriate for Republicans.

"Two weeks after the explosion, the federal government doesn't have a plan to stop the damage from growing."

From Hugh Hewitt. But they sure do want to let you know that BP will be paying for it. That's reassuring. Of course, I'd be more reassured if the feds had been prepared for it.

Can you imagine what would have been in the press had GWB been president when this happened?

When Is Political Involvement Hate Speech?

Why, when you oppose Democrats, of course.

When the healthcare reform bill passed the U.S. House last week by a vote of 220 to 211, it wasn’t hard to find things in it to oppose. This indeed is not a miracle cure. It won’t stop insurance companies from jacking up rates, for instance, but maybe folks like my 85-year-old mother will at least get a break on the cost of her prescription drugs.
But the most heinous thing that happened that day had nothing to do with the legislation itself. It was the vile display of bigotry by protesters at the foot of the Capitol steps. Someone, hiding in the crowd on that Saturday, spat on U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri. Several somebodies shouted the n-word, including to Rep. John Lewis, who was severely beaten during a 1965 civil rights march. And among the signs protesters held was one that said, referring to a senator and to a brand of gun, “If Brown can’t stop it, Browning can.”

No one could positively identify the culprits. The rest of the Tea Party revelers heard no evil, saw no evil, and spoke no evil. But they were doing evil.

Opposition to any piece of legislation is fine. But the brazen display of hateful name-calling and spitting on legislators that has occurred in connection with the bill has no place in our democratic process.

Apologists are quick to disavow these hate-mongers and marginalize them as fringe members of the Tea Party movement, which professes to have legitimate grievances against the federal government. But the heart and soul of the movement is rooted in hate for President Barack Obama — and not because he is a Democrat.

If you read the rest of that piece, you will discover that the only reason anyone opposed Obamacare was because Barack Obama is a half-black man and we're all a bunch of racists. This is nonsense, of course, as is the notion that the Tea Party movement is the new KKK. Plenty of people are unhappy with the direction that Obama and the Democrats are taking us (after all, 46% of Americans didn't vote for Teh One), including a percentage of people who did vote for BO. To call everyone who opposes huge deficits and government control of 1/6 of the economy racists is not just offensive, it's stupid.

Mark Davis notes that the "Tea Partiers are racists" meme is widespread and pervasive, but also illogical:

Their argument is: (A) This movement is filled with vocal people displeased with the way things are going; (B) I can find examples in history of people whose vocal displeasure was fueled by racism. Hence, (C) these people must be fueled by racism.

OK, boys, let's see how you like it: (A) You are fans of ObamaCare; (B) Castro is a fan of ObamaCare, so, (C) you are communists.

And while there may be more than a few communists among Obamacare supporters, it's unlikely that the vast majority of liberals think communism is anything but a discredited evil (well, unless you are Thomas Friedman).

Yet somewhere, sometime, it became unpatriotic to protest or say nasty things about the POTUS? When was that? Evan Coyne Maloney puts the date at January 20, 2009:



Will dissent become patriotic again once a Republican is president?

UPDATE: Victor Davis Hansen has more examples of "patriotic" dissent.

Most Transparent President. Ever

PROMISES, PROMISES: Records not so open with Obama

President Obama's administration has rejected nearly twice as many Freedom of Information requests in the first year than President Bush did in 2008. This comes, of course, after Obama campaigned on having the most open, most transparent presidency ever.

UPDATE: House Dems are celebrating Transparency Week by avoiding taking an up-or-down vote on Obamacare. Gotta love it.

History Will Thank Him

Cheney: Obama should thank George W. Bush

If [the administration is] going to take credit for [Iraq's success], fair enough ... but it ought to come with a healthy dose of 'Thank you, George Bush' up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations with respect to prosecuting that war were just dead wrong," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

Obama, Leadership and the Filibuster

Nothing pisses off the Left more these days than the filibuster. Or, at least, the threat of a filibuster. As Hugh Hewitt has noted, for all the hoopla from the moonbatosphere about filibuster abuse, the Republicans mounted not one filibuster in 2009. Not one.

What Democrats are complaining about is the use of calls for cloture, which Republicans have used effectively. Now, Democrats want to make the filibuster a campaign issue. Which, of course, would be smart if Americans actually wanted the legislation that has gotten bottled up with cloture votes. They don't and, in fact, applaud the idea of Democrats losing their supermajority. Even Barack Obama is pretending he favors bipartisanship (even as his press secretary mocks a private citizen. Nice bipartisanship!). But that doesn't stop the lemmings in the Democratic Party from claiming that the filibuster is being abused and stopping them from doing the People's Business.

Wonder of wonders, we even have Ezra Klein saying Obama should be more like George W. Bush.

George W. Bush had recess appointed 10 nominees, including one to the National Labor Relations Board in August of his first year. We're in February of Obama's second, he has more than twice as many nominees held up as Bush did, and he's only threatening his first recess appointment.

Bush had this right. In his first year in office, he was using recess appointments and running major legislation through the reconciliation process. That normalized those moves for the rest of his administration. Using those tools wasn't a story. The Obama White House, by contrast, is holding those moves in reserve, which has allowed Republicans to paint them as extraordinary measures. But they're not extraordinary measures. They're basic elements of governance in an era of polarization and procedural obstructionism, and the White House should treat them that way.

Ah, what convenient memories liberals have. Yes, George W. Bush used recess appointments in his first year in office. But Democrats vehemently opposed those appointments and put blanket holds on GWB's nominees. Moreover, President Bush quit using them after Democrats retook Congress in 2006.

What Klein should be complaining about is the rampant hypocrisy of Democrats complaining about procedural foot-dragging now when they applauded it less than four years ago. If the filibuster was good and recess appointments were bad in 2004, then Democrats should accept the consequences of those positions now.

It's a Good Start

Obama wins more spending cuts than Bush

President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years.

The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs.

Among the president's victories are canceling the multibillion-dollar F-22 Raptor program, ending the LORAN-C radio-based ship navigation system and culling a series of low-dollar education grants. In each of those cases, Mr. Obama succeeded in eliminating programs that Mr. Bush repeatedly failed to end.

Now if he can only manage to cut out Obamacare, cap and trade legislation and stimuli bills, we'll be all set.

John Yoo Cleans Jon Stewart's Clock

Via National Review Online, we get to see what happens when you send a comedian in to do a journalist's job.



As NRO's Daniel Foster notes,

There are legitimate reasons to find the “enhanced interrogation techniques” Yoo’s legal opinions underwrote troubling, and good-faith debates on the subject have long animated The Corner. But what Yoo’s victory indicates is that Bush’s interrogation policies — right or wrong — were soberly and sincerely crafted responses to a difficult problem, not slapdash sadism.

Liberals have argued that GWB was simply a sadistic bastard wanting to torture innocents. The interview clearly counters that argument. It also shows what lawyers do so well versus comedians.

The Hope and Change You Voted For

The Obama White House is more concerned about saving face and blaming the Bush administration for failures than protecting the American people from terrorists.

On December 26, two days after Nigerian Omar Abdulmutallab allegedly attempted to use underwear packed with plastic explosives to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight he was on, and as it became clear internally that the Administration had suffered perhaps its most embarrassing failure in the area of national security, senior Obama White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and new White House counsel Robert Bauer, ordered staff to begin researching similar breakdowns -- if any -- from the Bush Administration.

"The idea was that we'd show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could," says a staffer in the counsel's office. "We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we'd declassify it if necessary."

Get it? It's more important to blame GWB than admit the Obama Dream Team f*cked up.

This administration is a disgrace.

Oh, How Short Their Memories

I'm constantly amazed at the short memories liberals and their accomplices in the media have. Take this column by Mike Allen at Politico:

The GOP is blaming Obama for the attack. But Republican lawmakers, candidates, pundits and commentators -- and the Bush administration -- blamed the CLINTON administration for 9/11. In September 2006, Secretary of State Rice told the New York Post editorial board, “Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11. … We just weren’t organized as a country either domestically or as a leader internationally. But what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton Administration did in the preceding years…We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda.” … Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a few hours after the attacks: “We had Bill Clinton backing off, letting the Taliban go, over and over again.” … Then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), later CIA director, in The New York Times, 10/22/01: “[T]he fact is that the Clinton administration was not very interested in our intelligence community, did not spend very much time worrying about, or using it, or investing in it. … It’s impossible not to go there if you really do an anatomy of why we are where we are today.”

The blogosphere wasn't in full swing in September 2001, but within months, there were plenty of lefty bloggers telling us how safe we were with Bill Clinton at the helm and how terrible GWB was at protecting American interests. My question for Allen and leftwingers now trying the, "B-but you said" defense is this: why was it impermissible to blame terrorist attacks on the previous administration when a Republican was the president but the same attacks are reasonable today?

Perhaps their memories are short. Or perhaps Allen and his ilk don't read Pandagon, Daily KOS, Echidne of the Snakes or even backwaters like Iowa Liberal. If he did, he would have read repeatedly how inept George Bush was at national security and how Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 was a completely accurate documentary that really told the truth about the jihadi attacks. And most would be telling us that the attack at Fort Hood as well as the underwear bomber are still GWB's fault, one year after he left office.

For the record, I didn't blame Bill Clinton for 9/11 any more than I blamed George Bush for it. But after watching the left compare President Bush to Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin, I am no longer in a forgiving mood. I've promised not to compare Barack Obama to Hitler or Stalin, but neither will I give him a millimeter of slack when he stumbles and falls flat on his face. Particularly when his government was warned about the underwear bomber back in October. Thank a liberal.

Clueless

Linda Chavez hits the nail on the head in her description of Barack Obama and his administration.

Clueless. It’s the word that best describes the Obama administration’s first year in office. They’ve proven themselves clueless about creating jobs; clueless about handling growing nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea; and now, most devastatingly, clueless about protecting Americans from terrorist attacks on our own soil. And with nearly one year under the belts, they can’t keep blaming the Bush administration for everything that goes awry.

I disagree with her last sentence. Obama will continue blaming GWB, even though most people aren't buying it anymore. It plays well in the moonbatosphere. Point out Obama's My Pet Goat moment? They argue about George Bush's response to the shoe bomber. Show why Obama's economic policies don't work? They complain that Obama inherited a lousy economy. And so on and so forth.

Didn't Obama campaign on being a "new kind" of politician? It would be refreshing if he simply quit whining about being the POTUS and just did his job. When was the last time you heard a new CEO whinge for a year about the company he "inherited"? Time for BO to put on his big boy pants and do his job.

Is Michael Moore Going To Make the Christmas Attack into a Movie?

That's a rhetorical question because of course he won't. But wouldn't it be great if he did? We already know that Obama had intelligence suggesting such an attack was possible. We know that the CIA knew about this guy because the bomber's father actually went to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria to warn them. And we have the president going snokeling instead of dealing with the failed attack. It seems like a lot of material for Moore.

If Obama were a Republican.

Instead, we'll be treated to more excuses, more whining and more attempts to blame GWB for Barack Obama's ineptitude. When will these clowns realize that a year into their administration, it's not George Bush's fault Obama's inexperience leaves him ill prepared to deal with the crises America faces?

28 Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11

Not bad.

On December 25, 2009, a Nigerian student attempted to ignite a mixture of powder and liquid on a Northwest Airlines flight landing in Detroit, Michigan. Passengers helped to stop the suspect from carrying out his mission after the device failed to fully detonate, marking the 28th foiled terror plot against the United States since 9/11.

This attempted plot is an example of how terrorists continue in their attempts to harm Americans. But it also illustrates the need to work with international partners on countering terrorism, while defending the intelligence and law enforcement tools that work inside the U.S. to disrupt plots, as well as the importance of going after overseas terrorist sanctuaries to stop terrorists from using these locations as a staging ground for operations.

The individual involved in the plot, believed by media accounts to be Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was a 23 year old engineering student living in London. He had boarded a plane from Nigeria to Amsterdam, and was flying from Amsterdam to the United States when he attempted to detonate a device as the plane began to land. The device failed to detonate, and passengers move quickly to stop the passenger from trying again, leading to his arrest by U.S. authorities.

I've often said that passengers will never again go peacefully to their doom after 4 Muslim extremists flew jets into the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field. This passenger's behavior when, yet again, faced with a Muslim extremist, proves my point.

How many of the 28 plots were hatched by Muslim extremists and/or Al Qaeda associates? And how many were hatched by Christian extremists, the ones liberals are always telling us are as dangerous and deadly to Americans as the Muslim variety?

Apparently, liberals think terrorist attempts to kill Americans isn't so scary anymore. I guess they've just been too safe under GWB to realize these guys mean business.

This does give support to the nutters out there (like me) who think closing Gitmo is a bad idea. Anyone have info on what the Pandagonistas are saying?

Another question, is this President Obama's worse than My Pet Goat moment and will the Left savage him for it? The worst that could be said about GWB was that he continued reading a children's book for a nine minutes while he tried to figure out what 9/11 meant. Obama played golf and had a grand time for the entire day at Christmas.

Now This Shows How Low Obama's Approval Has Sunk

Bush closes the gap

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor.

By 2012, every politician will be claiming to have agreed with GWB.