Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:18:54 PM
I read the most repulsive attempt to excuse Obama's anticipated failure
in a comment on TH:
What
transparent straw-grasping! It is the ideology of the crypto-fascist
Republican party (bears no relation to the original Republican Party)
that is mainly responsible for the mess Obama inherits. Despite his
faults, Clinton left finances in good order, and an America not at war
on multiple fronts. Mr. Bush and the rest have trashed the house they
occupied, and the incomers have to renovate and clean up the dung.
There is so much wrong with this, where to begin?
First,t eh financial situation. Bush actually left the economy in good shape except for two things, which we will deal with later. Ignoring those, unemployment has been low, the economy has been growing, even despite fears of a recession, until recently we have not had a quarter without growth. Despite wars and terrorist attacks, Bush managed to keep the economy on an even keel and, despite low popularity, kept the public confidence in the economy. And that doesn't even take into account the huge benefits reaped form his tax cuts. He did engage in a foolish extension of medicare with the prescription coverage, but as the Democrats proposed an even more disastrous version, it is hard to blame Bush for that.
On the other hand, he did inherit the subprime crisis initiated decades ago by Jimmy Carter, and made worse by Clinton's policies and the actions of "community organizers' such as Obama and ACORN. When the Republicans did try to fix it, the Democrats refused. So to blame Bush for that is just absurd.
Worse still, when the Democrat created crisis broke, not only did the press blame the Republicans, but they so aggressively talked up the crisis and talked down the economy, that they actually made the problem much worse than it would have been. thanks to media hype, nervous investors fled the markets, causing the credit constriction to worsen. Whether they did it to sell papers, to promote Obama or both, it was a despicable act on the part of the press.
But for those two events, Bush's economic legacy would be relatively strong. Granted the press tried to blow an economic slowdown in last few quarters into a recession, but even with the press trying to talk down the economy, it took the subprime collapse to really cause growth to stop.
Now, let us compare that to Clinton's "orderly house".
Yes, the numbers were superficially strong coming out of the Clinton administration, but already, before 9/11, the economy had started to collapse. The press tried to blame Bush, but as the economic numbers were slumping after only a month or two in office, it is clear that Clinton had left Bush a very troubled economy. On top of that, let us not forget that Clinton's policies were a big part of this subprime time bomb that has finally caught up with us. So, calling Clinton's economy "orderly" is absurd. He left his successor with a Potemkin village, superficially strong, but filled more with febrile energy preceding a collapse rather than any real strength.
And that brings us to "wars on every front".
The first problem is that this position ignores the fact that we were attacked. We did not just choose to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, we were attacked in 2001, and Iraq continued to harbor and support terrorists, to pursue WMDs and to violate the ceasefire from the first Gulf War. So, it was hardly a matter of choice. And, beyond that, we aren't at war. Despite the claims of the poster, we are providing military forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are both friendly states, we are no longer at war in either.
So, does this poster criticize every president since WWII for having troops in Japan and Germany? If not,t hen why criticize Bush for having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? The situation is the same.
Also, Clinton may not have left us at wear, but he set the stage for far worse to happen. By ignoring Iraq's provocations, failing to capture Osama when he had the chance, and treating terrorism as "a police matter", he set the stage which led to 9/11. Bush had been president for under 8 months, his policies had little to do with it. it was the ineptitude of Clinton that led tot eh conditions which made 9/11 possible. (As well as gutting our army so greatly we find ourselves overtaxed by two relatively small occupations, which would not have taxed us at all in the 1980's.) Clinton may not have left us with "war on all sides", but he left us in a condition where every aggressor thought they could attack with impunity. Bush did not.
Of course, I don't believe the poster thinks this description is true. The reason for his post is obvious. He knows, as do many Democrats who have not completely deluded themselves, that coming into a weak economy, Obama is not going to have the surplus to enact his sweeping spending plans. Either he will raise taxes, and destroy the economy, or do nothing, and upset the left.
Since it is obvious Obama is going to face some big failures, our poster is trying to create an excuse ahead of time. Unfortunately, it is a pretty weak excuse. I hope they find better in the next four years, or Obama's legacy won't be very flattering.