You Know It Is Bad For Obama When…

You know it is bad for Obama and the Democrats when the talk of the weekend is the dueling Vice Presidents. Dick Cheney and Joe Biden traded shots at each other over the weekend over a number of things. Joe Biden said that he did not believe another 9/11 size terrorist attack on us (here at home) was likely.

“Look, let me put it this way. The idea of there being a massive attack in the United States like 9/11 is unlikely, in my view,” the vice president said. Info Wars

Biden accused Cheney of rewriting history or not being aware of what happened and then rewrote history himself when describing how wonderful the Obama administration has been. Listening to Biden one would think that a successful war was not waged during the Bush years and that the victory was entirely the result of Obama. Of course, one has to expect this as Biden and Obama have a game plan and that is to whine and blame Bush for everything.

Rudy Giuliani has been described as 9/11 plus a verb. Obama and Biden are best described as whine plus blame Bush. Thirty seconds into his speech today Obama blamed Bush. Obama blamed Bush and then lied about his own record (the stimulus created or saved 2 million jobs, it worked, blah, blah). It is the pattern. They figure if they keep blaming the last guy and lying about it on top, they will keep the attention off their failed policies (like the stimulus).

I happen to believe that blaming the last guy for every bad thing is a sign of poor leadership. Obama blames Bush and will not give him credit for any of the good that has been passed on (he certainly is quick to take credit for it). It is a shame because they sound like whining babies. George Bush did not blame Clinton for any problems that were passed on. Bill Clinton did not blame H W Bush for his problems and Reagan did not blame Carter for his problems. And to be fair, Carter did not blame Ford. They did all the blaming on the campaign trail, pointed out the problems in the beginning, maybe took a few veiled shots while explaining their plans and then moved on. None of the previous presidents have whined like Obama. He is a huge crybaby and not fit to lead.

As bad as it is to have all the headlines discussing a war of words between the old and new VPs, you know things are really going bad when the media points out things like the rising number of homeless on Obama’s watch. Usually, homelessness ceases to exist when a Democrat is in office. When Republicans are in office the newspapers print the stories about the number of homeless and how terrible it is. When a Democrat gets elected the MSM stops reporting on the homeless as if they magically got places to live. The tide is turning if the AP is reporting this:

Homelessness in rural and suburban America is straining shelters this winter as the economy founders and joblessness hovers near double digits—a “perfect storm of foreclosures, unemployment and a shortage of affordable housing,” in one official’s eyes.

The AP must not have gotten the “don’t mess with the messiah” memo because it reported this. The MSM got Obama elected. They were behind him, ignored his radical past, refused to vet him, and painted a better than reality picture of him. They have skin in the game and cannot lose their man. This is why you rarely see them reporting the number of war dead. When Bush was in office twits like Olberman and Matthews would have segments about the number of US service members killed. The names of the war dead would be scrolled on the TV screen. People had to be reminded of this day in and day out.

The military members who die on Obama’s watch are quietly reported. No names scrolled, no body count, no nothing. They must protect the messiah.

So it is very strange indeed that the AP would report on the homeless.

Then again, maybe they are Bush’s fault as well.

Sources:
CBS 1
CBS 2

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

24 Responses to “You Know It Is Bad For Obama When…”

  1. Adam says:

    “You know it is bad for Obama and the Democrats when the talk of the weekend is the dueling Vice Presidents.”

    I don’t get the point of your post. Is it bad? This has been the role of VP many times in the past. When you have two attack dog VP’s like Cheney and Biden what do you think is going to happen? Are they going to play nice and hold hands and talk about how great each other’s administrations were or are?

    “I happen to believe that blaming the last guy for every bad thing is a sign of poor leadership.”

    Sorry, but Obama has Bush Administration attack dogs like Cheney running around constantly blaming Obama for the recession, unemployment and a host of other things he inherited from Bush. Then they attack Obama on terrorist attacks of the nature that happened under Bush many times after 9/11 but still pretending Bush was perfect on terrorism (even sometimes skipping 9/11, that was Clinton anyway right?). This is why Obama needs to keep setting the record straight.

    Call it whining. Call it blame. Call it whatever. If your side wouldn’t seek to rewrite history Obama wouldn’t have to set the record straight.

    “No names scrolled, no body count, no nothing.”

    Actually, the one show that I’ve seen consistently report the dead is Stephanopoulos’ In Memoriam which as far as I can tell is still running. But we all know what kind of radical Republican Stephanopoulos is so he doesn’t count, right?

    • Big Dog says:

      Of course Cheney did not speak out until the Obama administration started blaming everything on the last administration. Stephie has been doing the memorials as a tasteful thing all along. The others, and you know I was talking about the vile stuff, posted the dead count each day and had the names all over. You could not turn the channel without seeing them discussing the cost in human lives. The only time they cover it now is when Owebama does a photo op at Dover. Bush has been quiet. You claim that Cheney was sent out but he appeared after the blame game started.

      • Adam says:

        “…and you know I was talking about the vile stuff…”

        I don’t know that. I’m not saying it didn’t happen but I haven’t seen what you’re talking about.

        “You claim that Cheney was sent out but he appeared after the blame game started.”

        This is false. Cheney has been on the attack about national security from the day he left office. This was no response to Obama. He was kind of like you. You called Obama a failure his first week. Cheney said Obama was risking another terrorist attack just weeks into Obama’s term.

        • Big Dog says:

          And Joe Biden said he would be tested within six months. I guess it depends upon who says it.

          No, Cheney did not want to hear the we inherited crap all the time.

          Owebama was a failure then and he is a bigger one now. He blew the good will of the people and he is wrecking his party.

          He and his wife are socialists. Why else would she have placed all the books about socialism in the White House library? You put out the things you believe in and it should come as no surprise that she and her hubby believe in socialism.

          OK Adam, I will have to concede, you would not know I meant the vile stuff because you agreed with it and did not see it as vile. I understand.

          Blame Cheney but he is right and that really bugs the libs.

        • Adam says:

          “Obama was a failure then and he is a bigger one now.”

          I don’t think you really have your concept of time down. You called the Indy 500 on the first lap and you’ve spent every proceeding lap saying “See, see, I called it, I called it!” By jumping the gun you’ve destroyed your credibility on the subject.

        • Adam says:

          “Blame Cheney but he is right and that really bugs the libs.”

          You love to talk about how things bug liberals. Palin bugs liberals, you say. Cheney bugs liberals, you say. Not really. For me anyway, Palin and Cheney and the entire GOP is like driving by a car crash. You don’t want to look but you do anyway and then you regret what you saw.

        • Darrel says:

          I wonder if Cheney and Palin approval combined equal Obama’s. Close call. I would look it up but just can’t get enough interest in either one to do it. Cheney is a loathed “has been” and Palin, with her sliver of republican support, is a “never will be.”

          Blitzer was fantasizing that Cheney might run. Talk about a liberal dream. Cheney or Palin running for any kind of high office. The republicans could/would never be stupid enough to give the demos such a gift. Surely?

  2. Mike Radigan says:

    In a related issue as a reconciliatory move by the Obama administration, the president has asked the U. S. Board on Geographical Names to name the fault line beneath Haiti after the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush.

    This particular fracture in the tectonic plate will henceforth be called:

    “Bush’s Fault.”

    • Big Dog says:

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Now that is funny!!

      • Adam says:

        What I like most of all is that you simply pretend the Bush admin was so kind to the Clinton admin. This is false of course. We all know the GOP rules on the blame game:

        Rule 1: If it happened under Bush’s first term it was the fault of Clinton. This means 9/11, the first recession, etc. That’s all the fault of Clinton and his ilk, of course.

        Rule 2: If it happened under Bush’s second term it was the fault of Obama. This means the second recession, the job losses, the massive deficit, etc. That’s all the fault of Obama and his ilk, of course.

        Rule 3: If all else fails don’t forget Carter, Pelosi and Reid. They deserve random blame and outrage as well.

        • Big Dog says:

          So can you point to Bush blaming Clinton or Obama for that matter? We are talking about OBAMA blaming, not his mouthpieces. Show me where Bush blamed Clinton every day.

          And it was Osama bin Laden who said Clinton’s inaction in Somalia led to 9/11. It is true that treating the terror as criminal acts and not responding with overwhelming force in Somalia emboldened the enemy.

          I can’t think of any huge attacks like 9/11 or the first WTC bombing that happened after Bush said you are with us or against us and then took the fight to the bad guys.

          They knew he was not a paper tiger.

        • Adam says:

          Bush did plenty of blaming of Clinton while in office. Bush himself hasn’t blamed Obama because he’s got better things to do. He’s had Cheney and others to do it from day one. The rules cover all of you in the regressive party.

        • Adam says:

          “And it was Osama bin Laden who said Clinton’s inaction in Somalia led to 9/11.

          They knew he was not a paper tiger.”

          So who’s to blame for all the attacks after 9/11 under Bush and Obama?

          If a terrorist pops up and blames Bush for something then can we cite them as an authority like you just did with bin Laden?

          “I can’t think of any huge attacks…”

          I’m sure our allies appreciate the way Bush prevented a 9/11 level attack on US soil since the attacks kept coming for them and not us.

  3. Big Dog says:

    So if I call the Indy 500 on the first lap and am right I destroy my credibility?

    So Obama called the Superbowl for the Colts and was wrong, does it destroy his credibility?

    I was right then and am right now. He is and will continue to be a failure because of his radical agenda.

    Like it or not you backed an inexperienced lightweight.

    • Adam says:

      “So if I call the Indy 500 on the first lap and am right I destroy my credibility?”

      When the race is closer to the finish we can talk who winners and losers.

      “Like it or not you backed an inexperienced lightweight.”

      Like it or not I backed a man who won the presidency fair and square and who had more parts of his agenda passed successfully in his first year in office than almost any president in history. You may disagree with the agenda but if you think Obama isn’t accomplishing the goals he ran on then you’re lying to yourself.

  4. Big Dog says:

    If Palin, Cheney and the GOP are like driving by a car crash then Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC is like watching the Titanic hit that iceberg.

    And you are busy listening to the music and rearranging the deck chairs.

    The smart folks are in the lifeboats.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Can you show some examples of Bush blaming Clinton?

    And you are saying Bush is having Cheney do this. Care to prove that?

    • Adam says:

      If you want examples all you have to do is look for them.

      Bush blamed Clinton for the downturn, for 9/11 and other foreign policy issues, for the deficits, etc.

      “And you are saying Bush is having Cheney do this.”

      I’m not saying Bush is making folks go revise history for him. I’m just saying he just has to kick back and watch while his folks continue to carry water for him well after he’s gone.

  6. Big Dog says:

    In case you did not notice, terrorist attacks on our allies have been a way of life for a long time, long before Bush was in office.

    You are free to blame terrorist attacks in other countries on Bush so long as you hold that standard for Clinton and Obama. So when someone blames the USS Cole, the Kobar Towers, and all the others on Clinton you accept that and when they throw in McVeigh and the first WTC you accept that as well.

    Any attack in the world will have to be Obama’s fault, under your rules, so keep that in mind.

    However, since terrorists have been attacking other countries for years I hardly see how that is any US presidents fault.

  7. Big Dog says:

    The problem is, you guys all think there was never terrorism or attacks until Bush retaliated but you can’t explain the attacks before he was president. You all think Gitmo is a recruiting tool but cannot explain what the recruiting tool for 9/11 was since we did not have Gitmo.

    You think that whatever Bush did led to the attacks but that the guys like Carter, Clinton and Obama had nothing to do with any attack on our country or its assets.

    • Adam says:

      “The problem is, you guys all think there was never terrorism or attacks until Bush retaliated…”

      “You think that whatever Bush did led to the attacks but that the guys like Carter, Clinton and Obama had nothing to do with any attack on our country or its assets.”

      Absolutely not true.

      “You all think Gitmo is a recruiting tool…”

      That’s because it is.

      “…but cannot explain what the recruiting tool for 9/11 was since we did not have Gitmo.”

      This is a foolish point to make. It’s not the only recruiting tool and certainly wasn’t the cause of 9/11. Laying blame for 9/11 is like laying blame for the late 2000’s downturn. It’s far more complicated than partisans want to make people believe in both cases.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Well Darrel, I imagine it would be tough to find a poll that is recent for Cheney.

    I also imagine it would be hard to find a poll without some poll bias. Obama has high disapproval in his job but is about 52-48 on popularity.

    He is coming down and will continue to slide.

    Just because people like you does not mean you are doing a good job.

    I doubt Cheney would ever run, he does not need the aggrevation. Palin might and you should be careful what you wish for. The anti Bush sentiment (coupled with white guilt and the novelty of a black guy) gave us an inexperienced man in Obama who is now in way over his head.

    If by 2012 the economy is not humming along we could get just about anyone (including a Dem to beat Obama in the primary) so careful what you ask for.

    • Adam says:

      The measure of Obama is how good he’s doing despite the downturn. He’s averaging 49% right now on pollster for job approval, 45.7% for disapproval. That’s not bad considering the climate of the country right now.

      In fact Obama is doing as well as Clinton, Carter, Reagan or Ford over the same span. Only the two Bush’s managed fantastic approvals in their first few years as president. The rest just have this middle of the road support that moved one way or another over the next 3 years leading to either election or rejection.

    • Adam says:

      “…including a Dem to beat Obama in the primary…”

      This is a pipe dream. I would bet my life savings that never in our life time will the two parties run a second against the incumbent of their party in the presidential election. The parties are run by cowards and blowhards. They will never do that.