« Are All Securities Created Equal? |
| New York Times series on decline of middle class to run over next few months »
July 24, 2012
The Real Basis for Republican Obama Bashing
There is a pyramid scheme email message (source?) multiplying its way through cyberspace claiming that whatever there is to be mad about Obama's tenure in office there is ten times as much reason to be mad at Bush. Yet while there was no uproar on the part of Republicans about the disastrous economic and foreign policy failures of the Bush administration, there is a great deal of Republican anger about those of the Obama administration. This can only be because of ... you guessed it.
If the Supreme Court stopped the recount, how could it have been legal? I see. The author of this piece has transcendent knowledge of legal matters vastly superior to SCOTUS.
There is little question that the oil companies wanted in on the "spoils of war". There is also little question that they miscalculated badly on the projected return on the amount of investment involved. The Der Spiegel article of 12/6/10, with the advantage of perspective, has an interesting postmortem on the oil aspect of the Iraq invasion. It is a pretty thorough account and the lead to the article gives the general tenor:
But divvying up the spoils (which has proven illusory at best) is a factor, one way or another, in every war. The question is whether there would have been an invasion without the prospect of an illusory boon to oil companies. That can never be decided definitively and to presume otherwise is to presume knowledge that is unobtainable. But the Democratic Congress including Kerry supported the invasion on the basis that SH was a clear and present danger to the US.
That was the stated purpose of government leaders most of whom derived no benefit from the likes of Halliburton, Exxon or BP. Moreover the argument that the invasion took place because SH was going to cut off the oil spigot is completely off base as SH could hardly cut off his own money supply.
As noted, the invasion was supported by both houses of Congress. That is the legal process.
[There follows a slew of questions regarding why didn't
Republicans under Bush get upset about government spending in Iraq, government borrowing (debt) and in general questions which cite incidents of wasteful or useless government spending under Bush. RINOS aside, the author has it backwards. Conservatives are always upset about big government (tax and spend). The author has the shoe on the wrong foot. In what follows I take up allegations that deal with other points]
This is pretty tricky business. The trouble is that in the real world the conservative free-trade argument which would back outsourcing operates in an environment which does not fit the free-trade model. There is all sorts of government subsidizing and sub-rosa protectionism involved in the real economic world. I leave the field of battle here to the author who, having greater wisdom, knows that all outsourcing is bad? Moreover, irony of ironies, it is not Republicans who are excoriating Obama for outsourcing it is Obama who is excoriating Romney for his alleged outsourcing.
Well, it's true Bush said that that was not the primary objective of his foreign policy but it was Clinton who had Bin Laden in his sights and neglected to pull the trigger. But I don't get the parallelism here. The pattern is why get mad at Obama for X when Bush is ten times worse with regard to X. Why get mad at Obama for not catching Bin Laden?
Completely false. Here is a headline from USA Today:
Again, completely false. Here is a passage from the NYT:
I'll give this some credence. The job losses started in earnest in 2009 but could arguably be blamed on the Bush administration with the caveat that the Democrats had control of both houses and were largely to blame for the housing bubble (the Bush administration did try to rein in Fannie, Freddie and Barney). But again, fixing blame is a big time enterprise and fair minded experts differ. Then came the banking meltdown (I personally blame it on a Chinese mathematician: Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street ). Ok. Being a bit facetious here. But the idea is not s far-fetched as it may seem and the article is a fascinating read.
Ah. At last the race card. It had to be coming.
Now how about reversing the question. From signing statements to rendition, why is it Democrats were so mad at Bush for his policies when Obama gets a pass for many of the same policies?
FOLLOW US ON