E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn 8:00 pm ET speech on Afghanistan, expect Obama -- in some form or fashion -- to declare success in defeating al Qaeda in the region… While the U.S. military might not like the surge withdrawal, Obama has more political leeway than ever before… Huntsman’s sluggish start yesterday and his stronger appearance on “TODAY” this morning… Yet he was unable to answer why his family’s Huntsman Corporation employs more in China and India than it does in the U.S… Pawlenty goes on the air in Iowa, meaning he’s all-in for the Ames Straw Poll… Our anti-CW on Iowa and New Hampshire… More rough news for Newt… And Huntsman stumps in South Carolina on Day 2 of his official launch.
*** Declaring success: When President Obama announced his troop surge in Afghanistan back in Dec. 2009, he said that the “overarching goal” was to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” The president went on to say, “To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives… We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.” In his 8:00 pm ET speech tonight on Afghanistan, Obama is expected to essentially respond to that paragraph from 2009 and say that progress has been achieved on all three fronts. And he might even say publicly what officials have been privately touting: that al Qaeda has been operationally defeated and essentially destroyed in the Af-Pak region, with the bin Laden kill being the symbolic exclamation point.
*** Obama’s political cover: The troop withdrawal that the president will announce concerns the 30,000 surge troops, not the total force in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that high-ranking officials in the U.S. military, including Gen. David Petraeus, want those surge troops to stay a bit longer there. But politically, Obama has more leeway than he’s ever had before. Just listen to what Mitt Romney said about Afghanistan in last week’s GOP debate. And listen to what Jon Huntsman said on “TODAY” this morning: “We can probably be a little more aggressive [on withdrawal] over the next year… What we need now is a healthy dose of nation-building at home.” One additional point: Tonight’s speech probably buys Obama a little more space on Libya. Why? Because, for another day or two, it puts THAT conflict on A4, and that's all the U.S. wants now is time as they continue to believe they are thisclose to forcing Khadaffy out.
*** But still a challenge for the president: Yet even though Obama can declare success regarding al Qaeda, and even though he has more GOP political cover on withdrawal, Afghanistan remains a challenge for him. As the Washington Post notes, “His prime-time address must remind a skeptical electorate and a concerned Congress that the country’s longest war remains worth fighting — and funding — for several more years.” The New York Times adds, “[B]ehind his words will be an acute awareness of what $1.3 trillion in spending on two wars in the past decade has meant at home: a ballooning budget deficit and a soaring national debt at a time when the economy is still struggling to get back on its feet.”
*** Huntsman’s sluggish start: The bad news for Jon Huntsman was that yesterday's presidential announcement didn't go smoothly (with audio issues, a misspelling mistake, and a flat speech). The good news: There's always another day, and Huntsman today stumps in South Carolina. His sluggish start was striking because the pre-rollout had been orchestrated so well, and it ran counter to the level of hype they were trying to give to the announcement. Yet the biggest shortcoming of Huntsman's speech yesterday was failing to address our question from yesterday: Who is Jon Huntsman? Yes, he wants to run an optimistic and civil campaign. Yes, he has an interesting biography (high school dropout, the band, the work overseas). And, yes, announcement addresses are rarely meaty speeches. But his announcement yesterday was full of generalities. In fact, the Washington Post fact-checker found that there were almost no facts to check in speech, because it was “content-free” and “fact-free.”
*** Huntsman on “TODAY”: Huntsman, however, was much stronger in his appearance on “TODAY” this morning. Regarding his low name ID, he told NBC’s Ann Curry that he’s still got months ahead to introduce himself to voters. “We have every opportunity to get out and talk about our issues.” On President Obama’s performance on the economy: “There is a lot of work to be done.” And on whether he’d raise taxes as president: “We didn’t raise taxes [in Utah]. We created the environment for business growth.” The one question Huntsman didn’t handle well was the fact that his family’s Huntsman Corporation now employs more people overseas than in the U.S. (“We now employ more people between China and India than we do in North America,” brother Peter Huntsman recently said.) Huntsman’s answer to this: If you look at any manufacturing company, it’s building more facilities overseas. But will that answer fly on the campaign trail?
*** Pawlenty goes on the air in Iowa: As we reported yesterday, Tim Pawlenty is going up with a new TV ad in Iowa -- the first Republican presidential candidate to do so. And now the ad has been released. In it, Pawlenty looks into the camera and takes a subtle dig at front-runner Mitt Romney, saying he passed health-care reform in Minnesota "the right way, no mandates, no takeover." At a $50,000 buy, the ad will air on FOX News in the Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Omaha, Ottumwa, Rochester, and Sioux City media markets from June 23 to July 3. Make no mistake: Pawlenty is all-in on the Aug. 13 Ames Straw Poll. His window is closing, and his team probably realizes he can’t afford another missed opportunity.
*** Some anti-CW on Iowa and New Hampshire: Speaking of Iowa… The Conventional Wisdom as we head into the early nominating contests is that Iowa will benefit the social conservatives, while New Hampshire will be where the moderates fare well. But here's a little anti-CW: It's possible that a moderate (say Romney) has a mathematical chance to win Iowa because either 1) the social conservative vote gets split, or 2) the moderate attracts new caucus-goers like Obama did in '08. As pollster Ann Selzer recently wrote, “Iowa is a problem for moderate Republicans only if they believe the 2012 caucus will fit the mold of 2008.” Similarly, in New Hampshire, it’s possible that Romney and Huntsman could all split up the moderate indie vote, leaving a social conservative (Bachmann? Perry?) to overperform in the state. Remember, the moderate BUSH won Iowa in 1980, and the conservative Buchanan won New Hampshire in 1996 (even when there was NO Dem primary competing for the indie vote).
*** Newt’s second line of credit at Tiffany’s: Unfortunately for Newt Gingrich, the stories keep getting worse, not better. Yesterday, we learned that his campaign lost two top finance staffers. And then came this: He “had a second line of credit at the high-end jewelry store Tiffany’s for as much as $1 million dollars,” the Washington Post’s Cillizza reported. “Joe DeSantis, a spokesman for Gingrich, said that the candidate’s personal financial disclosure filing, which is due within 30 days of his formal entrance into the presidential race, will ‘show that the Gingriches had a $500,000 to $1 million line of credit at Tiffany’s, that it has a zero balance, and it has been closed.’ DeSantis added that all debts to Tiffany’s had been paid in full. He offered no details about when the second line of credit was taken out, what it was used for or when it was closed.” How long will Gingrich allow this to go on?
*** On the 2012 trail: In Georgia this morning, Gingrich already delivered a speech on the economy and the Federal Reserve… And Huntsman, in Columbia, SC, visits a local business, holds a media avail, and meets with supporters.
Countdown to Iowa GOP straw poll: 52 days
Countdown to NV-2 special election: 83 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 139 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 229 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.
Leave a Comment:
The only goal should be the reasons that we got into Afghanistan is to prevent Al Qedia from attacking this nation. There is no military or political victory in this country. The GOP use to understand this or has 9/11 been supplanted by stupid politics?.
Hypothetical situation: A rat chewed through wiring or computers were hacked and Afghanistan is unintentionally made into a parking lot.
Analysis: If polls show Obama's approval down, the Republicans are solely to blame. If his approval is up, he will take personal credit for pushing the button.
IMO Obama will either shift blame or take complete and personal credit, whichever serves him best.
That may be true and rest assured what ever decision he makes it, good or bad, will be opposed by the GOP despite their beliefs.
Crystal,
See my post #45
"The one question Huntsman didn’t handle well was the fact that his family’s Huntsman Corporation now employs more people overseas than in the U.S. (“We now employ more people between China and India than we do in North America,” brother Peter Huntsman recently said.) Huntsman’s answer to this: If you look at any manufacturing company, it’s building more facilities overseas. But will that answer fly on the campaign trail?"
Could this be the reason why the Stock Market, and Big Business are making record profits without creating jobs??
A GOP candidate too!! Who would have thought?
Unfortunately the only thing that we have won out of that region is death and a huge recession from the unthinkable amount of money that has been spent to do whatever it is we have done.
It doesn't matter what President we have in office because the common person is walked upon in this country and when that day is up and money means nothing only then will those who use their power and money for greed learn what the United States was built on.
I'm all for getting our infrastructure back in shape, and construction jobs are great...
.....but what about the rest of the folks who need jobs? how about them?
is this the same obama and left that mocked bush endlessly for declaring victory?
I guess it fits a king better than a president. If obama's head gets any bigger, they'll need a trailer behind air force 1.
This article seems to try to defend the Pres. by focusing on the words of Republican candidates. If Obama decides to bring home 5,000 troops (which could include 2,000 Nat. Guard that were intended but never deployed, I consider his actions another failure along with the stimulus, cash for clunkers, mortgage bailout, etc.
Hold on a minute!! Doesn't Obama have to get on an Aircraft Carrier with banners flying to declare "Victory in Afghanistan"? Something akin to what Bush did concerning our dubious "Win" in Iraq!
Ah Al Fonso,
But Bush was a Military pilot once. Obama was a "community organizer" LOL
Fisty, Chigetto Brevenly, and Navy Dude(ette):
You people crack me up. You each represent the other's grotesquely incestuous cheering section. My intuitive conviction is that none of you have been a bona fide contributor of GNP.
Let me put it simply: CAPITALISM IS A MERITOCRACY, COMPLAINERS = CHRONIC SLACKERS IN THIS SYSTEM.
sick and tired of stupid comedians...you should try another profession; you suck at this one.
Can this dithering clown President ever ever make a decision that isn't politically motivated? He doesn't give a damn about our brave troops. All he cares about is his personal election campaign and follows whatever rookie advice he gets from his amateuristic Demoncrat advisors.
Obama couldn't lead anyone out of a wet paper bag, he is by far the worst Presidential mistake in history.
FoxNewsTruth,
See my post #45
Bring them home all you want Lord Obama, your policies are getting ready to bring on WWIII. Good job, MORON.
Hell yes its a victory. The Taliban has lost everything and now lives in the mountains with whats left of its idiot followers. Did we exact an equal measure of retaliation. No. The whole country of Afghanistan is not worth one of those trade center buildings. We got all there was to get. Its time to leave. Make no mistake though, this was no Viet Nam.
to Beverly in Chicago, you have way too much spare time on your hands.
This war was lost when bush refused to cross over into pakistan and deal with al queda hiding there. The main purpose of going into afghansitan was to attack al queda and destroy them and the taliban government who supports them. They fled to pakistan and we stopped at the border. When we leave look for everything to revert back to the same as before mode, except all of the people who helped us will be attacked and in the future they will learn not to trust the U.S. anymore.
We went after al-queda...we should have went after them and pakistan be damned....they are not that strong and they could be toppled easily. If we were not dedicated to win we should have just let it alaone...its been a lot of military sacrifice and loss with a lot of political back slapping and bluster for a whole lot of nothing.
Bush and odumbo are both failures.
If we don't wise up soon, we will be sending ourselves into a depression much worse then the Great Depression. We have destroyed this country with two words: "National Security".
Yet all of these candidates throw these same two words around the same way all the rest have, and I think every American now knows what these words mean: coverup, swindle and people using our government to "screw" the people of this country. We have lost our government to the leaches and phoney two-bit gangsters the movies made so popular. And we have let these "hoods" steel from us our national treasures (oil and natural gas) and use them to make the money to keep them in power.
This election is a very important one in American History; it marks a turning point either to continue the downward spiral these leaches have propagated into perhaps, Civil War; or to show the world that Americans can clean house; and throw this Republican and Democrat vermin that have sucked up our life blood so long out of government; and perhaps even into jail cells, where they belong.
We need to elect honest people who aren't swayed by making a buck. Is that impossible in America?
I don't know. It is up to you people out there to find candidates outside of the power politics of the "parties", and elect them to do what needs to be done. We must once again make these words "National Security" mean what they truly mean in a real democracy: the people!
Why is this war being treated like a game? How could anyone Win a war? Too many lives are destroyed, lost and interrupted, to look at it like a win or lose series of events.
The cost to all humanity for this war, can never be justified. Decisions were made at the time that events were unfolding. Now it's time to update and change that old thinking and more forward. That means return everyone in the USA to their real goals in this short lifetime. Love, peace and harmony!
We here in the United States always think, and have always thought about love, peace, and harmony. Let us never forget that the reason there's a war in Afghanistan is because that is where the organization who attacked us on 9-11 trained their troops; and the ruling class, the Taliban, refused to kick them out of their country or turn over any of their leaders to the U.S.
In short......treat us peacefully, and we will do likewise to you. We didn't start that war in Afghanistan. The people who attacked us, and their supporters did.
It's useless to ask this question, because I can see that the media is heading in the same direction it went in 2008 when Obama got "Buff-Puff" treatment.
But, do you suppose we can get something more from the media in this national election cycle? Something other than "Obama very good. Everyone, and everything else very bad".....?
Or, should we just ask him if he needs a pillow, and something cold to drink, as Saturday Night Live suggested three years ago?
 So MSNBC says Huntsman had a sluggish start last night. Gee Im so sorryy that all these Republicans do not meet the prerequisits that MSNBC has. "Huntsman failed to answer question about his business" give me a break. He is in business, in order to compete in certain business's you have to do things that allow you to compete. He has done nothing illegal so whats your problem. At least he has a business. All the scrutiny you have mustered over all these Republicans, if you would have mustered 1/10 th of that on the current President he would not have been elected either. What business di Mr. Obam ever run? How about his lackluster preformance as a Congressman and Senator from Illinois. Who paid his way through Harvard? I am sure he got assistance from some affirmitive action grant. So what do you have a country that is being run about as succesfull as PAC group or government funded program. MSNBC look around you at the success's from an amature. Economy a mess, jobs a mess, foreing policy a mess. This is what you get when you dont scrutinize people for there success's and only for there failures. MSNBC is nothing but a promotion site for Obama's reelection and Chuck Todd is the campaign manager. Â
JJ Canada,
When I went to school at Indiana University in the early seventies, I saw that minorities, mainly blacks, almost always got in the government assistance line during each registration. I thought OK, no big deal. If they can't afford the tuition, housing, meals and books etc. So what??
What shook me up was the grade inflation that I personally witnessed. Our test scores were posted outside the classrooms. Numerical score and corresponding letter grade. A discrepancy was seen over and over. We went to see the head of the department to ask what gives.
He explained that this was a part of affirmative action. If you are black, and the normal spread for an "A" is 94 to 100, for you, since you happen to be black, it might be 90 to 100.
Ok, 4 points difference. No big deal. However, the normal spread for a B would be 86 to 94. If you are black, the spread would be 78 to 90.
The difference for a "C" was ridiculous. For me to get the "C", I have to be in the range of 70 to 86. If you are black, .......55 to 78.
Now I am relying on my memory and this was about 40 years ago, but it illustrates how far affirmative action went BACK THEN.
The theory was that, if the Government and the schools allowed this dumbing down of the college education, then the children of those who enjoyed these breaks would have a higher propensity to attend college and succeed.
Has this practice continued to this day?? Well I think one look at Obama and his wife assures us that is is alive and well.
I was in college in the '70's and heard no such story.
That's the thing with Flame Throwers, NDD. There doesn't have to be a shred of truth to it. Once they make the incendiary comment, they get to just sit back and watch their 'handy' work.
I've followed Affirmative Action in the recent two decades and I have NEVER heard of any institution 'grading' on the race curve. Admissions was the focus of the program.
But, I'm sure if I bring up USPS 'exam' testing and the preferential treatment for Vets I'll get completely blasted, right? Now that one is TRUE and verifiable:
http://www.postalreporternews.net/2007/10/02/veterans-preference-and-the-us-postal-service/
I am not attributing a value of good or bad; but I am merely pointing out that it exists. I dare Edward to show verifiable proof of which he speaks.
This is the exact type of insinuation that has gone on with President Obama. That he somehow didn't apply and get accepted to Harvard and that he somehow PAID or otherwise bribed his peers to ELECT him to President of the Law Review. It's the insinuation that is flawed; but it certainly motivates the bias many have toward him or others that are perceived to have received some unfair advantage. I guess it makes them feel better about their lot in life since they didn't have the 'obviously' privileged childhood of our 44th President.
Clara post 97.3 I dont know about Edwards experience or yours and I really dont think it matters as far as my post. The points I was trying to emphasize was that we dont have to look at what grades Obama got or how he got into Harvard. We have plenty of real world action or lack of it as proof of his capabilities. His tenure as President and Senator and Congressman show it all and that is very ltille actually done. He talks a good game and is a great campaigner but an amatuer in his mode and operation as President. The point of the article by MSNBC was to cut down Huntsman for his success's becuase they like Obama. The other point I was making is that MSNBC and most of the upfront media cant find success's for Mr. Obama so the make up his accomplishments and cast aspersions on anyone of success who has the gaul to run against him.
jj
well, what is it they say,...the only people with the experience for the job can rarely run for it again. The fact that President Obama is incredibly smart and can keep many tasks a float at once convinces me unequivocally that of the candidates CURRENTLY on the Horizon,...he is the person for the job. Every time he is counted out, 'tested' and on the ropes,...we see a major surge/victory/accomplishment. And when I am talking about multi-tasking,...I look at the weekend that Osama bin Laden was killed,...The man is completely unflappable with a steady hand. I do not get that sense of control from the erratic, folks wanting the job.
I disagree with your assessment of the hosts. A lot of what is happening is straight up political gamesmanship. Hug your friends, make out with your enemies,...and hope someone gets photos. I don't necessarily agree with it; but it sure seems to be the NEW way politics is played.
Clara post 97.4 First, please tell me how you came to the conclusion that Mr. Obama is "incredibly smart" and is a good multitasker?
Second, what do you know about any of the candidates that the Republicans are running? I bet you couldnt name more that 2.
Third what major surge victory/accomplishments are you talking about?
The weekend Osama was being killed Mr. Obama was sitting in the situation room watching it on TV. Now that was a great accomplishment logistically on the Military's part but all Mr. Obama had to do was say go. Was there any thought to what would actually happen in Pakistan after. Was there any thought about capture and taking to the World court after like Nuremburg after WWII? Is the US as a nation in the avowed assasination business? The facts of his foreing policy have shown that he not only cant keep consistant but doesnt even have policy. His whole administration speaks with 5 different toungues.
This draw down in Afghanastan (and it is not a withdrawal as he says) is removing 30,00 troops of the 33,00 troops that topped up the 70,000 troops he put there after he was elected. Again he is lieing to you all.
The fact of the other Republicans running for office is that most of them have been very succesfull at what they do. They all have track records of success. The media will not look at those things, the media belittles very small things like Huntsman employ's people outside the US in a business outside the US. They make up Obama's success's and eliminate from view his very questionable dealings and cohorts.
I am glad you think he is brilliant you must realy like twiddlede and twidledum.
well, you are sorely mistaken:
Current candidates are Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Michelle Bachman and Tim Pawlenty - Ron Paul is a consideration but I am not aware that he has declared. Pretty sure Palin is NOT a candidate; but time will tell. The bench is wide; but not terribly deep.
Well, I consider him very smart because I've read his books, I've watched him speak in interviews where he wasn't mic'd and fed the answers and I've listened to many speeches. Further he was ELECTED by his peers to be President of the Harvard Law Review (not exactly a 'social' promotion, no matter what so many choose to believe).
Are you KIDDING me that the "night" Osama was killed he just sat there and phoned it in? Do you even hear the hate in your head? The events leading up to the decision that was made on Thursday or Friday, the man was on the road dealing with the Tornado near Tuscaloosa, visiting NASA in Florida, attendng and speaking at the White House Correspondent's dinner,...absolutely no hand tip there,...come on.
Business success does not equate to Governance success. The mentality that pushes that idea is completely immature and lacking a seriousness that should really be considered. In an economic environment where AVERAGE citizens are desparate for employment opportunities. Knowing that three of the candidates actually reduced jobs on their Business Watch is incredibly germaine, don't you think? It's not trivial that Huntsman's companies employ more FOREIGN workers than domestic ones to American's looking for employment NOW.
No, I'm not into fairytales, like the fantasy that any of the aforementioned candidates can WIN in 2012. It's simply NOT going to happen. Mark my contact and ping me in a year and a half. We will have MUCH to discuss I'm sure.
Ok Clara you googled some of the candidates. You forgot Rick Santorum, (he was at the debate) Fred Karger, Gary Johnson, Andy Martin , Jimmy Mcmillan, Tom Miller,Vern Wuensche and yes Ron Paul has declared. So 6 out of 14 is pretty good. Who are you to say the list is not deep. Your ability to understand the problems that the country has may not be deep but I asure you that at least 8 of these people understand that the country is on the fall and if something isnt done soon the US will go the way of Rome, Greece and Eqypt.
So you say Mr. Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law review.
"The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2000 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions and, together with a professional business staff of three, carry out day-to-day operations."
Wow he ran a staff of three. He helped publish papers. Ok I will give you that, but really is that a great prerequisite for running the United States. You have an academia running your country. How do you think that is going to work out.?
You have listened to many speeches! Well I will give you that too. That is all Mr. Obama does. He talks about what he is going to do and calls people folks and does the opposite when he does anything at all. If you listen to him off the cuff he usually is reaching to try and get his idea across.
I didnt say that Obama was on the phone when Bin Laden was taken down. I said that there is not a lot the President does then. The CIA finds the guy, The military plans a mission all the President does is go over the intel and then give a thumbs up or down to a mission. Where is the hate in my head in saying that? I am just telling you how it works. Mr. Obama wasnt dealing with a tornado in Tuscaloosa. Was he holding it back with his magic wand? He spent most the the week leading up to and during the tornadoes in England sleeping in the Queens bedroom and touring Europe and attending a g 20 conferance. He only went to tornado alley long after it was over. Yes the night before Bin Ladan was killed he was berating anyone who disagrees with him at the WH correspondents dinner. How is that helping your country.
Business success is a great purvayer of the qualities required in a President. Business has to manage people, make quick decisions, sell a product or service and be profitable. If your Government was like that you wouldnt be 14 trill. in the hole, your electorate (customers) would be happy and they would be happy to pay for your service. It is precisley your thinking (and some would call that imature) that got your country into the trouble it is in. I dont know which three candidates you are talking about but i will bet that none of them have reduced jobs more that the 20 million that Mr. Obama has under his belt. (how Germaine is that)? Did you know that if you have a foreign company there is a good chance that your employees will be foreign also. Go figure.
Well you are living in a fairytale. You have highest unemployment since depression, you have more wars goiing that during Bush era. You have deficit that needs to print more money or you will default on your loans. You have a divided nation. You have a Pres. that is telling you he is pulling out of Afghanastan but still leaving 69,000 troops there. (more that GBush ever had) You have killed twice as many Americans on Mr. Obamas watch there than under GBush. Your country is in the Assasination business in Libya and around the world. So please Clara tell me how you are not living in a fantasy world? If you beleive this is all good or even better than 3 years ago, then I think that is the definition of fantasy. Can you say China. Your President has only helped push them to become the next Dynasty while he sleeps and guarantees the US fall.
How'd the last "CEO president" work out, jj? Two wars he couldn't figure out how to get us out of, and the slowest recovery from a recession in 70 years which ended in what very nearly became another Great Depression.
John B. I gues I could ask you the same question but it would be far more relevant since this is now. Who is the current lawyer working out.? Last I looked about 25 states are suing him over constitutional issues and that is his supposed area of ecpertise. I think taht we can all agree that Mr. Bush didnt actually start his businesses on his own unlike many of those running for the Republicans now. Are you one of those blame everything on Bush for the next 100 year guys. If so how are you gonna ever fix anything. I bet you dont like it when your wife is mad at you says " remember that waitress you smiled at 20 years ago". Grow up, get real and get current.
jj,
If I would have googled it, I wouldn't have missed any, geesh.
I live in a pretty good neighborhood; but it isn't called 'fantasy'. It is SO much better than three years ago when gasoline was $4.00/gallon (it ate up 'W' s feeble attempt at a stimulus) and banks were closing at a very rapid pace, unemployment was just beginning the complete FREE for all. Where were you? Under a rock?
Corporations are sitting on Trillions of dollars of cash and they are extorting workers and our government that if they don't get continued FAVORED treatment they are really going to give the 'squeeze'. and you want to defend that and tell me BUSH had it right three years ago? Talk about Fantasies. Not even I picked the Royals to win the world series and I'm a huge fan!
jj, saying I "blame Bush" is overly simplistic. I blame 3 DECADES of supply-side, Laissez-Faire economics. It's a philosophy that failed in the late 1800s and ended with the advent of the Trust Busters--including Republican Teddy Roosevelt. It's a philosophy that failed with the Great Depression, and didn't improve until the election of Franklin D Roosevelt. It's a philosophy that's resulted since the election of Ronald Reagan in a stagnant middle class, immense concentration of wealth in the upper class, and a series of scandals and financial bubbles that have weakened the American economy to the point where we've had trouble recovering from the last 2 recessions.
It isn't that Bush failed, it's that Republican mastery of the economy is a myth and all the numbers show that to be their economic concepts to be utter failure. Time to put them out to pasture once again.
His declaration of success will only happen if this country is that far gone that he is actually reelected in'12.
Mission accomplished?