SIDESWIPE – Over the past year, George W. Bush has been blamed by Democrats from Barack Obama down for just about anything that has a negative connotation, from the status of the war on terror to the economy. As Republicans celebrated winning Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat this evening, former Democrat Chairman Howard Dean went so far as to blame Mr. Bush for the Democrat’s defeat in Massachusetts. Ridiculous? Well, if Howard Dean is right, isn’t the converse also true? Doesn’t it follow that Republicans should be crediting George W. Bush for their victory? That, of course, is equally ridiculous. Perhaps it is time for Democrats to stop the Bush-bashing and take responsibility for their actions. This special election was a referendum on Obama Care, not the last President. They should take heed.
Read also
Ask Gavino
Ask Gavino
2 comments
Subscription
Subscribe to RSS feed news
Receive commentary updates directly in your inbox when you subscribe free to Ask Gavino . Simply enter your email address below and click Sign Up!!
Sorry. No data so far.
It was truly amazing to watch the pundits last night. Rachel Maddow lives in her own world of die hard liberalism and cannot see the facts! She blamed Bush’s conservative fiscal policy for the mess we’re in, ignoring the fact that the Congress was ruled by Dems during his presidency and ignoring the benefits of his stimuli packages and tax cuts. The policies that got him into trouble were the ones where he agreed to go along with no reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and his huge increases in federal spending and programs – hardly conservative! She also mis-characterized the tea party folks who span the political spectrum; they’re not just disenfranchised Republicans! The group is comprised of all political walks of life who are tired and afraid of Obama’s Big Government/Big Brother approach. We’re a year into the Obama “reign” and he’s done everything BUT try to stimulate job growth and in fact has declared all industry to be “evil”, selfish and “greedy”. He’s made it very clear what he thinks about US industry. In the meantime, debt has tripled and unemployment is sky high and remains so. The Dems and other “true believers” have really fooled themselves. This election should be a big WAKE UP call, but the party die hards won’t see it. Obama is either weak and has let Pelosi and Reid run the show in a corrupt, partisan way or he’s a socialist like they are. I think it’s a little of both. The press can try to say that the American public just doesn’t like one party control, but this election shows that it’s more than that. This an outright rejection of Obama and his plans to ram everything he can down our throats while he can, no matter how many politicians he sacrifices!
I hate to say this but I’m going to have to disagree with Gavino. At least Ed Schultz of MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” does. According to Ed the real culprit for the Massachusetts debacle is none other than Dick Cheney. This is a transcript from his show on election day.
“The latest polls shows that Republican Dick Cheney-like Scott Brown pulling ahead of Democratic candidate Martha Coakley. … Independents have abandoned the Democratic Party in Massachusetts. A recent poll shows Brown with a 69 percent to 28 percent lead among Independent voters. … President Obama got 57 percent of the Independent vote in 2008. And I am stunned that the Independent middle class voters in one year would turn around and trust somebody like Scott Brown, who is just a protégé of Dick Cheney. This is a guy who walks, talks and acts like the former vice president. There‘s nothing genuine about this guy at all.”
Later in his program Mr Schultz, agonizing over the impending results, asks several “insightful” questions about why someone would vote for a guy like Scott Brown. I will try to answer them for Ed.
Schultz: “Would you go out and vote because I just don‘t like the way things are, or would you go out and vote because you know what direction your candidate is going to take and what the agenda is going to be?”
JoeB: Ed, President Obama was elected because people didn’t like the way things were. The Presidential election was as much, if not more, an anti-Bush vote than a pro-Obama vote. Scott Brown clearly stated what he wanted to do as a Senator: stop the current Obamacare plan, reduce spending and lower taxes. Martha Coakley said she was in full agreement with the Obama agenda. The voters preferred Brown’s direction, it’s that simple.
Schultz: “…You want to go back to Bush-Cheney? I am amazed. I can‘t believe the Independent voters. … I‘m asking myself, and I have been all day, for the last several days, on the radio show as well, what has this candidate done to garnish all of this good will in the polls from Independent voters when he is a top two percent kind of guy? He‘s not a Wall Street regulator. He‘s an anti-labor guy. Middle-classers in Massachusetts, what has Barack Obama done to have you turn against him in the 11th hour when we‘re trying to get something revolutionary done in Washington?”
JoeB: First, your questions infer that the voters have been duped; it is a shame that you have so little respect for the people that you claim as your people. Ed, you need to stop looking backwards – the future is forward. Mr. Brown clearly stated his fiscally conservative agenda and the majority of Massachusetts voters liked what he stood for. The voters are having buyer’s remorse over President Obama. They don’t like the fact that president Obama and the democrat Congress is taking the country down a far left path. All the voters needed to know was that Scott Brown represented the potential to put the brakes on this leftward lurch and this special election was the opportunity to make it happen.