Are the Republicans ever responsible for anything?

<p>The Republicans have enjoyed great power in the last 8 years, with a president who once got record-breaking approval ratings, and solid control of Congress. But whenever a problem comes up, they never seem to want to accept responsibility for it. Either this is the most ineffectual presidency ever (I know Bush is man-child, but is there really a regent behind the scenes?), or the Republicans just won't man up to their mistakes.</p>

<p>Allow me to illustrate:</p>

<p>1) 9/11: blamed on Clinton</p>

<ul>
<li>occurs almost a year into Bush presidency</li>
<li>numerous reports show that the Bush administration was warned many times of an impending attack by one Osama bin Laden, yet it did nothing</li>
</ul>

<p>2) Economic recessions: blamed on Clinton</p>

<ul>
<li>despite inheriting a booming, robust, and deficit-free economy from the Democrats, Bush presides over a net loss of jobs in his first term</li>
<li>instead of re-examining controversial policies like the Bush Tax Cuts (once opposed by a once-principled John McCain), Republicans pass the buck to Clinton and claim that the dot com bubble was the only thing that elevated the 90s economy</li>
</ul>

<p>3) Faulty intelligence on Iraq War: blamed on George Tenet, British intelligence</p>

<ul>
<li>despite stern opposition from various experts like Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Joe Wilson, and Richard Clarke (to name a few), Bush administration heads into Iraq anyway; when they inevitably and expectedly end up with egg (and blood) on their faces, they blame Tenet and British intelligence, as if America is some naive child that can't discern fact from fiction </li>
</ul>

<p>4) Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of New Orleans: blamed on FEMA and Michael Brown</p>

<ul>
<li>Bush administration passes buck to Michael Brown, the head of FEMA, despite the fact that Republicans cut funding to FEMA</li>
<li>not to mention the fact that when an American city is being destroyed, it's kind of the job of the president and not the head of FEMA to provide leadership</li>
</ul>

<p>5) Subprime mortgage crisis and the collapse of investment banks: blamed on Democratic congress that's been in power for less than 2 years</p>

<ul>
<li>despite a steady process of deregulation that began in the Reagan years under Republican watch, the Republicans choose to attribute all the nation's economic ills to the 20-or-so months that the Democrats have been in power in Congress</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>Look, you can't be in power for 8 years and not be responsible for anything bad that comes along. That means you're utterly weak and ineffectual. At least salvage some dignity and stop pretending to be some kind of puppet regime.</p>

<p>But perhaps, the greatest shirking of due responsibility is just coming up:</p>

<p>6) Disaster of Bush presidency: blamed on Bush, and Bush alone</p>

<ul>
<li>conservatism is great, Republicans are great, but Bush was bad</li>
<li>now that we don't need him anymore, we can pretend he was some kind of renegade, and all the problems he caused were because he wasn't conservative/Republican enough</li>
<li>vote for his ideological partner, McCain and Palin!</li>
</ul>

<p>

</p>

<p>Clinton had a chance to take out OBL and balked. Clinton also had a chance to respond with a measure of strength to a number of Al Qaeda attacks on the US during his terms (WTC 1, USS Cole, US Embassy Bombings) and once again wussed out. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah, that OBL was going to attack somewhere at any point. Sort of like telling the highway patrol that there is going to be a fatal accident at some road somewhere in the state and expecting them to prevent it. </p>

<p>You’re not too far off on number 2.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not entirely. Blame was passed on pretty much everyone. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Pretty much the entire world community (including France and Russia) believed that Saddam had WMDs. The disagreement wasn’t over whether Saddam had them or not, it was over how much time we should have given the weapons inspectors.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And rightly so. Don’t forget to add Mayor Nagin in there, he had a hand in failing to adequately protect the residents of his own city. He had a chance to evacuate the city, but as the infamous photo of hundreds of flooded out, unused New Orleans buses showed, he failed to provide leadership. </p>

<p>5) Subprime mortgage crisis and the collapse of investment banks: blamed on Democratic congress that’s been in power for less than 2 years</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I haven’t seen any evidence of it, and believe that today’s crisis cannot be attributed directly to any one party.</p>

<p>The economic budget & Policy for Bush’s first year in office, was set by Clinton, so that recession was in truth a result of the Clinton presidency.</p>

<p>It must make you mad that the media isn’t successful at propagating the belief that the Democrats are perfect that you have to go out and argue the “truth”.</p>

<p>Clinton is a smooth man. He always says “you can argue that”…meaning yes, there is a slight truth, then completely destroys the premise he brings up as if it is completely false. </p>

<p>For example, with Obama’s readiness to president, he responded, “You can argue that nobody is ready to be President,”.. We know what he really thinks, after all, he’s chosen McCain as his keynoter for his Global Initiative :D</p>

<p>Recently, on The View for example, he cited the turbuleny quadrupling of the stock market during his reign as “possibly” causing turbulence now, but he said, nope.
*He cited the repeal of the glass-steagall act as a “possibility”, then said nope.
*He said you could argue they should have been more strict on derivatives when he was President, but no one in Congress wanted to do it.
*He could have reigned in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but they had too much money to contribute to both Republicans and Democrats and it would have never happened.
*No one even brought these possibilities up, but he himself brought it out for others to wonder.</p>

<p>I think it’s a preposterous assertion that Bill caused the mess, but certainly, he got too relaxed in the seemingly good days (good days greatly in part to an inflated stock market without sound fundamentals [Enron, dotcom bubble]) and didn’t bother with the unpopular issues.</p>

<p>Deregulation is not the problem. Bad oversight is the problem. Cronyism is the problem. If there were sound rules with sound enforcement, with Fannie/Freddie not cozying up to the Congressional Black Caucus as “family”, for example. You want to talk about Reagan deregulation like it’s exclusive to Republicans, again, Clinton, was not exactly a regulator either.</p>

<p>You want to talk about the failures of “deregulation”, cite some examples buddy.</p>

<p>Obama keeps talking about “failed” Bush economic policies but he never mentions specifics. Certainly, our bad times can be critically attributed to piercing gas prices, inflation, a tumbling housing market, and instability within the financial markets.</p>

<p>[The</a> Associated Press: Analysis: Democrats absorb a defeat on drilling](<a href=“http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6g8dq2OQYGViiVT7vPGedEsDD0AD93DBFVO1]The”>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6g8dq2OQYGViiVT7vPGedEsDD0AD93DBFVO1)
Obama opposed drilling, but was willing to use the issue as a “compromise”, thereby recognizing the validity of the issue. McCain saw the need for our own sources to be less dependent on crazies like Chavez</p>

<p>[Bloomberg.com:</a> Exclusive](<a href=“http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=azPOyrCia8Nc&refer=home]Bloomberg.com:”>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=azPOyrCia8Nc&refer=home)</p>

<p>McCain took the ungreen, unpopular position against ethanol (not his only unpopular positions of course). Right then, right now. Ethanol has done nothing for gas prices, raised food prices.</p>

<p>[Bloomberg.com:</a> News](<a href=“http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0]Bloomberg.com:”>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)</p>

<p>[IBDeditorials.com:</a> Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor’s Business Daily – Congress Tries To Fix What It Broke](<a href=“http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=306544845091102&secure=1&show=1&rss=1]IBDeditorials.com:”>http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=306544845091102&secure=1&show=1&rss=1)</p>

<p>oh my man pug fug, when do the links stop. i clicked on this thread to read a good arguement and debate, but then i get a thousand links… like if ANYONE would ever go through them.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s his strategery, since he repeats the same talking points over and over again (I’ve had to enlighten him on Obama’s present votes in the Illinois senate at least 3 times).</p>

<p>Many people recommend ignoring him. I’m not always able to do it, but maybe you can try.</p>

<p>Chris, I know it’s hard to resist me because it’s hard confronting the facts, logic, and truth :D</p>

<p>Slick Willie, out there campaigning for McCain :D</p>

<p>Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”</p>

<p>in 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in the two organizations bypassing some strong new regulations.</p>

<p>WALLISON: Which would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring this bad – these bad mortgages. It actually gave a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie the kinds of powers that a bank regulator had.</p>

<p>ANGLE: All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats, including the current chairman, Senator Chris Dodd, voted against it, and that was after Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had issued a stark warning to senators that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire. Greenspan said without stronger regulations, “We increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Without restrictions on the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States.”</p>

<p>[Fannie</a> Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times](<a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1]Fannie”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1)</p>

<p>**Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. **</p>

<pre><code>‘‘From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,’’ said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. '‘If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.’’
</code></pre>

<p>9 years ago, this conservative institute warned of the bubble bursting. And nada happened.</p>

<p>Chris, please cite some of these “failed Bush economic policies” please.</p>

<p>[Trailhead</a> : Why Bill Clinton Is Such a Lousy Surrogate](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/09/24/why-bill-clinton-is-such-a-lousy-surrogate.aspx]Trailhead”>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/09/24/why-bill-clinton-is-such-a-lousy-surrogate.aspx)</p>

<p>John McCain himself also blames Bush for the economy.</p>

<p>

  • John McCain</p>

<p>[McCain</a> accuses Bush of economic failure](<a href=“http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/409580/cs/1/]McCain”>http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/409580/cs/1/)</p>

<p>As for Bill Clinton, he displayed the same kind of lethargic endorsement of Al Gore back in 2000. I think Bill is just too self-centered to ever effectively play the role of the surrogate (in contrast, John Kerry relishes the supporting role and is a better attack dog than he ever was a presidential candidate). In 2000, he was slighted that Al Gore ran away from his legacy (due to the Lewinsky scandal), and in 2008, he was slighted that Hillary was not automatically appointed nominee by mere fact that she was a Clinton.</p>

<p>John McCain himself also blames Bush for the economy.</p>

<p>

  • John McCain</p>

<p>[McCain</a> accuses Bush of economic failure](<a href=“http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/409580/cs/1/]McCain”>http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/409580/cs/1/)</p>

<p>As for Bill Clinton, he displayed the same kind of lethargic endorsement of Al Gore back in 2000. I think Bill is just too self-centered to ever effectively play the role of the surrogate (in contrast, John Kerry relishes the supporting role and is a better attack dog than he ever was a presidential candidate). In 2000, he was slighted that Al Gore ran away from his legacy (due to the Lewinsky scandal), and in 2008, he was slighted that Hillary was not automatically appointed nominee by mere fact that she was a Clinton.</p>

<p>McCain added, “I say the Congress has failed, Democrats and Republicans. I remind you the Democrats have had the majority in Congress for the last two years. So everybody’s failed.”</p>

<p>Way to put the statement in context. </p>

<p>You’re just as disingenuous as the New York Times.</p>

<p>[Bailout</a> Talks Go on Amid Presidential Scuffle](<a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5884701]Bailout”>Bailout Talks Go on Amid Presidential Scuffle)</p>

<pre><code>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reportedly said, “We’re not the ones trying to blow this up. It’s the House Republicans.”

Paulson replied, “I know, I know; it’s both sides,” according to a Treasury Department spokeswoman.
</code></pre>

<p>And how it comes out in the New York Times:
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<pre><code>“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”

Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.”
</code></pre>

<p>Politics is a game.
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26ads.html?em[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26ads.html?em&lt;/a&gt;
Of course McCain wants to distance himself from the unpopular incumbent.</p>

<p>How about, you, Chris, point out some of these “failed Bush economic policies”?
In the end, the issues matter, and McCain is right on the issues.</p>

<p>You all have to be kidding me. If you think this problem is approximately two years in the making, just give up and get a new hobby.</p>

<p>How has Bush failed the economy? Why does it even matter? I thought you Republicans disowned Bush?</p>

<p>Bush allowed the Fed to lower interest rates to practically nothing in order to spur investment to get out of the recession. Bush allowed banks to recklessly issue loans, and then sell those mortgages to everybody (including foreign banks) to cash in on the housing boom resulting from the extremely low interest rates, thus creating a cycle of non-accountability and non-responsibility in loans and credits. Bush allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the supposed safeguards against recklessness of the banks, to stay silent while Wall Street imperiled itself with unwise financial policies.</p>

<p>To partisan non-thinkers, the roots of the problem were laid from 1992-2000 during the Clinton years, then there was a great big gap between 2000-2006, during the height of Republican rule. Then the problems suddenly staged a convenient comeback in 2006 when Democrats won back control of Congress.</p>

<p>Be a man and accept the fact that the collapse of the economy happened under a Republican administration. To pass the buck to a president that hasn’t been in office for nearly eight years, or a congress that was sworn in less than two years ago, smacks of cowardice.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well said. A president and party in power for eights years blaming a congress of two years for the ills of their administration? Ridiculous. Unbecoming. Childish. Cowardly.</p>

<p>Bush didn’t “allow” anything. That’s not his job to monitor interest rates, buddy.</p>

<p>Chris, you are being completely facetious.</p>

<p>[Community</a> Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia”>Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Compare the actions of the Clinton vs the Bush administration. Complete reversals. I ask for actions, not rhetoric. Your emotional arguments have no logic, no facts.</p>

<p>Chris, you usually post a more compelling argument. This one is not. </p>

<p>Iraq is bad, and will continue to be the worst decision that Bush made. The economic thing is as much to blame on Democrats as anyone else. Neither Republicans or Democrats were calling for more oversight on mortgage issuers.</p>

<p>Certainly, the Republicans, and Clinton could have worked harder on Freddie/Fannie to not get us in this situation. But the differences are clear. The Democrats are in Freddie/Fannie’s coffers, the leadership of these companies thanked the Congressional Black Caucus as their family. The Democratic leadership absolutely denied any chance at reform until it finally hit the fan.</p>

<p>Republicans need to grow up and accept responsibility. They’re like the 25-year old guy who still lives with his parents and plays Madden all day.</p>

<p>To Republicans: You’ve been in power ever since the millennium hit. It’s your fault.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Except for the past 2 years under a Democratic congress, which by the way was a lower approval rating than GWB.</p>