Obama is Doing Many of the Things Bush Did...

[grahamhgreen]

[LuvNewcastle]

1. I mentioned that in an argument with a Republican last weekend.

He was on a rant about Obama, and I said, "what are you bitching about? He's basically been a conservative this whole time. Y'all ought to love him." If he wasn't black, they would probably have been singing his praises.

[newfie11]

2. +1

[sulphurdunn]

7. They'd probably name an airport

after him too and discover that his father was actually just a dark complexioned white Baptist hedge fund trader from Kenya.

[JohnnyRingo]

13. You probably made his day

Now he can go to his impeachment minded friends and truthfully say "even the democrats hate Obama".

If you thought Obama was a conservative this whole time, I have to wonder how you decided your vote last November. Did you flip a coin? How did it come up?

[bahrbearian]

18. Like many of us, we held our nose, you know,better than Rmoney.

[andlor]

19. +1

[LuvNewcastle]

22. That's exactly how it was. The lesser evil.

[JohnnyRingo]

24. Yet the OP claims Obama is just as bad as Bush

It's commonly accepted that Bush was the worst president in modern history. Even Romney was potentially a much better president than George W Bush, and that was a low bar to slither under.

To hear many of the posters this week, holding one's nose couldn't have been enough, it would require intensive olfactory surgery to vote for Obama's re-election. I don't want an intervention in Syria, but the hyperbole has reached incredible highs, like a football fumble where everyone feels free to needlessly pile on.

This post is a prime example.

[leftstreet]

34. 2012 voter turnout - lower than 2008 & 2004

57% of eligible voters

Looks like some people weren't even able to hold their noses

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. That's what I did.

pee u

[KG]

3. he had the opportunity to be something special, instead he's been just another politician

[marew]

5. +1 n/t

[Octafish]

32. He could've been somebody.

Majorities in both houses of Congress and a landslide mandate, to boot.

[KG]

33. instead, one-way ticket to Palooka-ville!

[tecelote]

4. I think he was a plant.

He acted like a Democrat to get elected and then acted in the best interests of the corporations.

Our government is broke. It no longer works for the people.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. x2

[LuvNewcastle]

8. I agree.

[RandiFan1290]

9. Just a "Noble Lie"

[avaistheone1]

55. That's a good way of stating it.

[TorchTheWitch]

20. I'm astonished that anyone would ever have thought anything different

It doesn't matter whether an R or D gets elected, every single one of them is beholden to the mega corporate money that bought them their seat. That's how politics works in this country and how it has worked for longer than any of us have been alive. Since Dems used to get most of their money from unions it used to beholden them (ie: us working stiffs), but since Reagan killed the unions instead of the Dem party figuring out another way to get their campaign dollars they just threw in the towel and went for the easy big business money... meaning that they OF COURSE had to dance with them who brought them... or more accurately - bought them.

The big R vs. D rah rah game got so ridiculously out of control (perfect example is this website since it's mostly what we do here) precisely when the Dems threw in that towel, and was purposely designed by the politicians and other powers that be to distract people from realizing that either party has any ideology at all, and just dance with them that brought (bought) them. And they all laugh all the way to the crooked banks absolved from their sins of insider trading that would land anyone else in jail and broke.

Until we get private money out of politics nothing is going to change, and us regular folk will just keep going further down the shitter until we're nothing more than starving unwashed dregs. At least I'll be dead before then.

[jsr]

25. It's Blue team v. Red team, under the same ownership

[raouldukelives]

26. The real voting in this country happens on Wall St.

The only thing more effective than voting for republicans is investing in republicans. Which is what every person with money in the markets is doing. Funding the takeover, dismantling and destruction of what we once called America.

[woo me with science]

30. It's pretty clear at this point. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. Of course he was.

[FiveGoodMen]

39. Yup!

[avaistheone1]

56. From the moment he won the election he started doing some really

bad stuff like giving immunity to AT&T for their illegal spying on people.

[JohnnyRingo]

10. I think that's going a bit far.

Now DUers are quoting key republicans in their argument to dicredit Obama. What's next, a Limbaugh Ditto Head forum here at DU?

If we were talking about early 20th century history, memories may be hazy, but I remember the Bush years, and specifically the run-up to the Iraq War, and there's no comparison whatsoever.

Please don't jump on me with swords drawn offering up some tenuous claims that this (or other) situations are exactly like GW Bush, I literally wasn't born yesterday. Don't bother reading my mind to call me a warhawk either, I'm for the most part against intervention, but just like when Bill Clinton ordered the Kosovo strikes, I'm not going to lose any sleep if we waste a few cruise missiles.

I'm also not going to join anyone taking to the streets to protest this president. I swear, people don't know how ridiculous it sounds to claim they absolutely loved Barack Hussein Obama right up until two weeks ago, and now he's dead to them. If that's true, they are the true definition of a flake.

[shotten99]

15. +1

I don't see the big deal, either. Surgical strikes are common place.

An all out invasion is quite another.

[JohnnyRingo]

17. No, this is nonsense.

I usually let the anti-Obama threads go, but to claim Obama is just like GW Bush is absurd, and posting a quote from Lindsey Graham to drive home the point is going too far.

Everyone pretty much agrees that even Mitt Romney would have been a better president than Bush, so I have to wonder how some people in DU really voted last November.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Except it does not say 'just like Bush' it says he is doing many of the things Bush did. Big

difference. Big. To a certain extent anyone doing that job will do many of the same things, so it is a true statement even if applied to politically polar persons. You even put 'just like' in italics for emphasis, when all that is said is that there are commonalities, not even a similarity, just that he does some things Bush did. Which he does. They even shared a Sec of Defense.
Both Bush and Obama have only appointed Republicans to head the Defense Department. Chew on that one. Commonality and a disgrace at that.

[JohnnyRingo]

53. Arrrgh! Caught up on a technicality.

I'm willing to offer a plea bargain from 4th degree hyperbole down to gross political exaggeration.

[KurtNYC]

16. I think people do well to organize around goals and principles

and not blindly trust in "personality."

For example, in Canada, you vote for the party and their platform, NOT for a specific person. Canada doesn't have the problems we have.

[HooptieWagon]

28. There is a lot of merit in that.

For one, it might encourage the development of additional parties. They wouldn't have to be a majority, just hold enough seats to tip the leadership vote one way or another.
otoh, gerrymandering might lock up one party in power for a long time. Do the Brits have a gerrymandering problem?

[sabrina 1]

42. For me it was when he announced we were not going to bother with War Criminals.

So when I hear him say 'we cannot tolerate these things', I think I must be dreaming. We not only tolerate those things, we PROTECT War Criminals.

And while some Americans don't see how this looks to the rest of the world, they should listen to what some members of Parliament had to say about how hypocritical we are.

Now we are arguing over what is an acceptable way to kill children.

White Phosphorous? Well, if we used it it's 'okay'. The victims, many, many more than the most recent tragedy, are just as dead, suffered just as much, and the residual effects are still ongoing with Iraqi babies being born horribly deformed as a result.

But 'we don't tolerate these things' we are told. YES WE DO, depending on WHO IS THE WAR CRIMINAL.

[JoePhilly]

11. Lindsey sure knows how to push your buttons.

Lindsey only needs people to hate the President, and our government ... he doesn't really care why.

The right gets angry, it votes.

The left gets angry, it stays home.

Mission Accomplished.

[grahamhgreen]

12. Why would Graham's support, which Obama is actively seeking, push my buttons? And if that's

The case, why is Obama seeking it?

[JohnnyRingo]

14. Do you have any good Sarah Palin memes?

She too knows how to fire up the anti-Obama base, and you may want to check to see what she thinks of Obama this week. She comes up with some clever ones now and then. I hear he pals around with terrorists.

Looking to Lindsey Graham for political inspiration is downright pitiful. At least quote someone like Grayson or Stewart. You shouldn't have to look too far outside the Republican party.

[bahrbearian]

23. Obama could fire up his base by not Palling around with Lindsey Graham or Grummpy McCain.

[grahamhgreen]

27. So you're saying that when Obama looks to Lindsay Graham, it's pitiful, correct:)

[JohnnyRingo]

31. Let me get this right...

If I understand, Obama is looking to Graham to gather Republican support for a strike in Syria, so that makes Obama just like George W Bush.

I think you may be grasping at straws to garner credence for your admittedly long time disdain for the president during both terms. Good luck with that.

I don't care if Graham supports the pres or not, I'd rather we not intercede in Syria's civil war, but if I wake tomorrow and learn that a few cruise missiles were launched, I'm not going to denounce my citizenship, demand impeachment, or grab a sign and march on Washington with you. I'll probably just be able to happliy go on with my day as usual. I apologize in advance for your upcoming total nervous breakdown over this.

[grahamhgreen]

47. What if you wake tomorrow and he wants to escalate?

[JohnnyRingo]

49. What if I wake tomorrow and I look like Brad Pitt?

could happen.

[grahamhgreen]

50. That will never happen. But wars escalate. It's a legit question.

[HooptieWagon]

29. There was a DUer yesterday extolling the praises of "moderate republicans"

...like Lindsay Graham, Dick Cheney, ad nauseum. I don't know if he got tombstoned, but it sure was funny. Someone's sockpuppet maybe?

[sabrina 1]

43. That's very strange logic. Lindsey is not the President we elected.

Lindsey always supported wars in the ME. He hasn't changed.

How about if the President we elected didn't give Lindsey the opportunity to do whatever it is you think he is doing. Was he trying to harm Bush when he supported him too on ME invasions?

Obama is the one who can change this. All he has to do, is to do what is right and a majority of the people on the planet would support him.

As it is, he only has the support of the same old war mongers. That is HIS fault, not theirs. They haven't changed at all. But by HIS actions, he has validated their insane policies and they are grateful for that.

[spanone]

21. fuck lindsey graham. fuck him twice.

[sabrina 1]

44. Yes it's a shame that he now feels validated for all his support for all these wars in the ME.

When what should have happened was what did not. The War Criminals should have been investigated, prosecuted and convicted and Lindsey would be afraid to open his mouth about any collaboration he is responsible for.

But here he has a Democrat validating Bush's policies so it's to be expected he would be happy about that.

[Supersedeas]

37. International law and the Geneva conventions are so quaint

[loyalsister]

38. Ya think any of that has to do with the condition of being president

The same can be said of Clinton and Carter.

[bigwillq]

40. Zing!

Obama is. And that's a shame.

[Yavin4]

41. Wow, DU continues to descend into nuttiness

Sad. Really.

[Puzzledtraveller]

46. That's gotta hurt.

[ProSense]

48. If Lindsey Graham says it, then it must be true, right?

Can we get the opinions of other Republican tools?

Rumsfeld Derides Obama as 'the So-Called Commander in Chief'
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/rumsfeld-derides-obama-as-the-so-called-commander-in-chief

[madamesilverspurs]

51. The only thing Obama does that Bush did

is pee standing up.



Otherwise, this is bullshit.

[grahamhgreen]

52. Drones

[hfojvt]

54. well they both breathe, and eat, and defecate

and shower and brush their teeth and wear pants, socks, shoes, and ties.

And so on. They both golf and fly around in AirForce One, etc.

On a more substantive note. They both signed into law massive tax cuts that favor the rich. Bush's expired in ten years. Obama's are permanent. They both lied and claimed that the tax cuts they signed were for the middle class, the poor, and the economy.

They both defended their trickle-down policies like this

"I look forward to signing the economic recovery bill soon. The principle of the bill is pretty simple, that we believe the more money people have in their pockets, the more likely it is somebody is going to be able to find work in America. In other words, the more money somebody has, it means somebody is more likely to demand a good or a service, which means somebody will produce a good or a service, which means somebody is likely to find work." George W. Bush May 22, 2003

"In my judgment, and the judgment of a lot of economists -- and the truth of the matter is, it's now become kind of the common wisdom in Washington, D.C. -- the best way to create growth is to let people keep more of their own money." (Applause.) George W. Bush May 2, 2003

Obama - "We need to begin by extending tax cuts for middle-class families so that you have more money in your paychecks next year. If you’ve got more money in your paycheck, you’re more likely to spend it. And that means small businesses and medium-sized businesses and large businesses will all have more customers. That means they’ll be in a better position to hire."

Graham probably commended Obama for that whereas I condemn Obama for it. I was hoping for much better. Better rhetoric and better policies.