Tag Archives: george w. bush

Obama Rated One of Best Presidents Ever – Better Than Reagan

A survey of 238 “presidential scholars” released Thursday ranked Barack Obama as one of the nations’s best presidents ever. According to the Siena College Research Institute, Obama ranks 15th three spots AHEAD of Ronald Reagan.  Imagine that: a man that has been in the White House for less than eighteen months and hasn’t accomplished anything is considered better than the president that reinvigorated America after the dreadful Jimmy Carter years while also ending the Cold War. Speaking of Carter, these geniuses actually ranked him higher than George W. Bush. The New York Daily News reported Thursday: George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be. That’s the verdict of 238 of the nation’s leading presidential scholars, who – for a fifth time – rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll. In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position – two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan. Yep. Clinton ranked higher than Reagan as well. Actually, the details of the full rankings are even funnier. For instance, although presiding over arguably the worst economic period in American history, FDR is ranked first in handling of the economy. First! But to REALLY give you an idea of how biased and absurd these so-called presidential scholars are, they rated Obama ahead of Reagan in handling of the economy. I kid you not. Obama was ranked 17th in this category, while Reagan, who started the nation’s longest peacetime expansion in history, was ranked 21st. Maybe even better, Obama was ranked 10th in ability to compromise. Wouldn’t you love to ask this geniuses to name some things Obama has compromised on since Inauguration Day?  For the record, Carter was ranked 32nd while George W. Bush came in close to the bottom at 39. It really makes you wonder what color the sky is in the world these folks live. 

Read more here:
Obama Rated One of Best Presidents Ever – Better Than Reagan

Scarborough Blames ‘American Apathy’ and Republicans for the Continued War in Afghanistan

Joe Scarborough on Monday continued to spin for Barack Obama, this time defending the President’s war strategy in Afghanistan and placing blame on the American people. Citing a New York Times columnist, the Morning Joe host complained, “And as Frank Rich said, the President’s best political ally on Afghanistan is apathy. Americans don’t care that their sons and daughters are going off to fight and die for a war that really has no end game.” Co-host Mika Brzezinski agreed. She derided, “Maybe if most Americans actually cared beyond the ones that have to go and serve we would have different outcomes.” While Scarborough reacted with some criticism, he was empathetic with the President because, “If Barack Obama takes the troops out and does what I’m saying he should do, Republicans will kill him. Every time a poppy is grown in Afghanistan, they will blame Barack Obama. Every time a woman is tortured inside Afghanistan, they will blame Barack Obama. Every time anything goes wrong, they will blame Barack Obama.” In all fairness, it was unacceptable for the media or Democrats to blame President Bush for any of our country’s problems. Except if you include all of them. Including, during the previous administration, the media saw the rise of the insurgency as an indictment of Bush’s lack of foresight, leadership and military acumen. Not to mention that the media and Democrats made stars of those who were critical of Bush’s policies. Nevertheless, Scarborough believed that the troops should get out of Afghanistan immediately because it is an “un-winnable war.” The former Republican Congressman has been sounding increasingly pro-Obama in recent months. Apparently, he’s now attacking the President from the left, parroting anti-war liberals. Since, the Afghanistan war is now the Obama administration’s war to own, it is now acceptable for the media to make excuses and avert blame to anyone but the current administration. Furthermore, if you criticize the Obama administration you are derided as a partisan who is just trying to blame Obama for another problem he inherited from the Bush administration. The host and anchors of MSNBC certainly weren’t as understanding of no-win situations when it came to the Bush administration. Based upon the actions of the current administration and its supporters, one would think passing the buck, not baseball, is our national pastime.

Chris Matthews Disgracefully Uses Sen. Byrd’s Death To Bash Bush

It goes without saying that Monday’s media coverage of Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-W.V.) death was predictably sycophantic on a disturbing number of levels. However, the award for most disgraceful use of a politician’s passing to further one’s agenda has to go to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews who ended last night’s “Hardball” memorializing a senator he had great esteem for by attacking former President George W. Bush. “Let me finish tonight with a tribute to a U.S. senator who shared my deep American objection to the Iraq War,” he began. Readers are cautioned that where Matthews went from here was offensive in the extreme (video follows with transcript and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a tribute to a U.S. senator who shared my deep American objection to the Iraq War. I love this country and believe in its historic greatness. I don`t know how those Founding Fathers found themselves in Philadelphia in the late 18th century but they did. And we are incredibly fortunate for that. And I love the symbol of the Gadsden flag that, coiled rattlesnake against a field of yellow. “Don`t Tread on Me` — it warned our enemies, and that included especially the British government and London. This morning, a man died who treasure this country and that flag. For those reasons, Senator Robert Byrd opposed both wars — both wars with Iraq. Here`s what he said in the fall of 2002: “For the first time in the history of the republic, the nation is considering a preemptive strike against a sovereign state. And I will not be silent.” And on the eve of that second Iraq War, he said, quote, “We proclaim a doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We saw that the United States — or we say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. There is no credible evidence to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11.” I was personally stunned and remain in awe that a president of George W. Bush`s abilities was able to take the attack on us of 9/11 and upturn two-plus centuries of American doctrine “Don`t Tread on Me.” We don`t attack but if you attack, we attack back. We oppose aggression. We are not the aggressors. Stop the tape! A president of George W. Bush`s abilities? What kind of nonsense is that? A man you admire dies, and that’s the occasion to mock a former President? How utterly disgraceful. But it got worse:  President Bush and his cohorts in and out of the government were able to construct a new doctrine: If we don`t like you or your policies we attack. If you cause trouble in your region, we attack. If we think you have WMD, we attack. Well, couldn’t that therefore apply to Woodrow Wilson and World War I? America was never attacked. And maybe Franklin Delano Roosevelt should be similarly excoriated for getting involved in Europe during World War II, for Germany never attacked us. Neither did Italy.  As such, using the Matthews Doctrine, we should only have attacked Japan after Pearl Harbor. And we never should have gone into Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq in 1991 for none of those countries attacked us either. Taking this further, Clinton never should have sent troops to Somalia in 1993, or Bosnia in 1995, or Kosovo in 1999. And he certainly shouldn’t have bombed Iraq in 1998. Add it all up, and in the past almost 100 years, Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton have all gone against the Matthews Doctrine. Yet, on the occasion of Sen. Byrd’s death, this so-called journalist chose to once again attack George W. Bush. And he wasn’t finished:  And millions went for it, hook, line and sinker. Senator Byrd did not. That he was so alone out there makes the swooning of America generally Bush`s war so frightening. If someone of Bush`s ability can make America forget its most basic, most time-honored standards, then imagine what a gifted demagogue could do. It`s one thing to send us off to Afghanistan, the base of those who hit us. Bush was able to then drive the entire country off to an altogether different direction. That`s what Bush did. Bush’s war?  Didn’t the Founding Fathers give Congress the sole responsibility to declare war? Why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that in October 2002, both chambers of Congress debated giving Bush the authorization to invade Iraq if Saddam Hussein didn’t accede to various United Nations demands? And why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that on October 10, 2002, the House approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution by a vote of 296 to 133? 81 Democrats voted “Yea” including Dick Gephardt, Jane Harmon, Steny Hoyer, John Murtha, and Henry Waxman.   And why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that on October 11, 2002, the Senate approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution by a vote of 77 to 23? 29 Democrats voted “Yea” including Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Breaux, Maria Cantwell, Max Cleland, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson (Neb.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Chuck Schumer.  As such, quite frankly, Americans like me are SICK AND TIRED of people like Matthews calling this Bush’s war!!!  And to use the occasion of a Senator’s death to do so is disgusting to say the least. The folks at General Electric must be so proud to not only have an employee like this, but a television network that encourages and celebrates such un-American behavior. Yes, I said un-American, because the Iraq War Resolution was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, and 75 percent of this nation approved of the invasion five months later. As such, WE THE PEOPLE went into this fight TOGETHER no matter how liberal media members like Matthews continue to shamefully depict it now. Will it ever stop? 

See the original post:
Chris Matthews Disgracefully Uses Sen. Byrd’s Death To Bash Bush

Janeane Garofalo’s a Racist Redneck: Expresses Disappointment With Obama

If Janeane Garofalo says something bad about the Obama administration, does that mean she’s a racist redneck? After all, she’s been telling people almost since Inauguration Day that anyone that disagrees with this president does so because of the color of his skin. So when she told the A.V. Club Friday, “There are so many things in the Obama administration to be sick over that certainly didn’t change” and “I was surprised how disappointing the Obama administration has turned out to be,” there has to be a racist element in play, right? Not surprising to folks that have followed the career of this shameless left-wing activist, this wasn’t the only glaring hypocrisy in this interview (h/t Big Hollywood):  AVC: You gave an interview several years back, deep in the heart of the Bush administration, where you said that the reason that you didn’t do stand-up as much then was that you didn’t find anything funny anymore. So can we assume that you’re ready to laugh again? JG: Yeah, there was so much stuff that broke my heart during the Bush years that I honestly could not do stand-up without going down one of those tangents and getting very strident. But also I was working at Air America five nights a week, so it was very difficult to do stand-up, because I wasn’t leaving Air America until 11 p.m. So there was that. Now, granted, there are still as many heartbreaking things going on. There are so many things in the Obama administration to be sick over that certainly didn’t change. And also our media, if it’s possible, seems to be getting even worse. The alleged news media. And then there are the teabag racists adding insult to injury. But I don’t have that same heartbreak anymore, because it’s not fresh heartbreak anymore. It’s like I’m used to it. I’m sure we all are just used to it. I have to say I was surprised how disappointing the Obama administration has turned out to be. That did take me by surprise. Readers should recall what Garofalo said about folks expressing their displeasure with the Obama administration in April 2009: Which, let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. So, when white conservatives express their displeasure with the Obama administration, it’s “racism straight up.” But when she does it, not so much. Not seeing the hypocrisy, Garofalo moments later reiterated her position about Tea Party members:  AVC: You did spend last year as a very visible target of right-wing hate because of that comment you made about teabaggers. JG: But I don’t know if it’s on anybody’s mind. It’s on the teabagger-type mind, but I don’t know if it’s on normal people’s minds. Does that make sense? The teabagger thing and the right-wing thing-they pick easy targets, and a female in the entertainment industry is low-hanging fruit. It’s very easy to mock and marginalize people in general who are in the entertainment industry, for some reason. But then definitely there’s the double standard and the misogyny that goes through it as well. They’ve got no problem with Will Ferrell or Alec Baldwin or Viggo Mortensen, but they tend to take issue when a female says something. It’s just an easier person to bully. And they just love making mountains out of molehills. It’s just a fact. If you don’t recognize the racist element in the teabag movement, you’re either dishonest, or you’ve never seen the teabag movement, or heard of it, or been acquainted with it in any way. Ah, so the reason folks on the right go after her is because they’re misogynists. Let’s add up the paranoia at play: when conservatives attack Obama, they’re racists; when they attack her, they’re sexists. Honestly, this is a woman in SERIOUS need of psycho-therapy. Regardless, let’s address her misogyny theory, shall we? Garofalo claimed the right-wing has no problem with Alec Baldwin. Maybe she ought to check our Alec Baldwin page to get a clue, as he’s been the subject of almost twenty reports since NewsBusters’ inception. We’ve also done pieces about Will Ferrell’s stupidity.  As for Viggo Mortensen, if he’s said anything you feel we need to address, Janeane, please feel free to send it to our tips line. But I digress:  AVC: You’ve also been called out by name and invited to tea parties by people like Deroy Murdock and other African-Americans within the Tea Party-people who probably don’t know you from anything else-ostensibly just so they can prove to you that there are minorities involved, so therefore they aren’t racists. JG: But not really. They’ve put that out on their side. They have never really invited me. They claim that they have, but they really haven’t. And having said that, I would never go. They will always say, “I invited so and so, and she declined,” when they’ve never gotten in touch with me. [Laughs.] But then also, a lot of the things they say I say, I’ve never said. They just make things up whole cloth. Really? You were never invited? Well, Garofalo appears to be conveniently forgetting that she was invited to attend the Dallas Tea Party’s gathering on July 4, 2009. They even put the invitation on YouTube: Did they make this up? Certainly not. Garofalo just refused to show up! Too bad, because as the following answer demonstrated, this woman doesn’t know anything about the movement she regularly disparages:  AVC: Last year, Lou Dobbs accused you of being hypocritical for encouraging people to protest during Bush’s administration, but then dismissing the Tea Party protests. How would you say the situations are different? JG: First of all, Lou Dobbs is ridiculous. Secondly, there was plenty to protest for the Bush administration. Protesting the color of a man’s skin is not a worthy protest. That’s what the teabaggers are about. The first Tea Party protest was scheduled for Inauguration Day. So what were they upset about? Which part of the job he was doing before he even did it were they upset about? Secondly, if they claim to be upset with government corruption, government takeover, crazy spending, where were they from 2000 to 2008? The first Tea Party protest was scheduled for Inauguration Day? Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Tea Party’s roots go back to Florida in 1983.  According to Wikipedia, there were Tax Day protests associated with the Tea Party throughout the ’90s.  Furthermore, the modern iteration of this movement is tied to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign when a fundraiser in December 2007 was set up to commemorate the 235th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  As for Garofalo’s claim that there was a Tea Party event the day Obama was inaugurated, Wikipedia lists the first such gathering in 2009 happened on February 10 in Fort Myers, Florida. As with just about everything this comedian says, whether intended or not, it’s typically a joke not to be taken at all seriously. 

Read this article:
Janeane Garofalo’s a Racist Redneck: Expresses Disappointment With Obama

Media Help Obama Bash Republicans, Forget ‘Polarizing’ Charge Against Bush

President Obama’s weekly radio address on Saturday devoted the entire hour to a hyper-partisan, long-winded, meandering speech about his Republican critics being too — wait for it! — partisan. Fortunately for him, a compliant national media would simply forward the attack on their own pages and never pause long enough to smell the irony. In the middle of alleged job offers, controversial nominations, and unpopular bills shoved through Congress along party lines, President Obama complained about “dreary and familiar politics” from the opposition, and the media immediately took his side. Up first was the Washington Post’s Scott Wilson who used the 44 blog on Saturday to cover the speech: A frustrated President Obama assailed congressional Republicans on Saturday for holding up legislation he said is important to the country’s economic recovery, and he called for up-or-down votes on the measure and on scores of his nominees in the Senate as soon as possible. “I was disappointed this week to see a dreary and familiar politics get in the way of our ability to move forward on a series of critical issues that have a direct impact on people’s lives,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. Obama has often sprinkled criticism of Washington’s partisan culture – a target of his 2008 campaign – throughout his weekly addresses. But he has rarely devoted the entire speech to the subject, and his doing so Saturday was a sign of his exasperation and concern that a failure to push through measures to benefit the staggering economy could hurt his party in the November elections. Wilson was correct about one thing: President Obama does often complain about partisan games. It seems that all of his problems can be traced back to incompetent Republicans or partisan critics, and he will gladly give a partisan speech to tell you about it. Yet it never occurred to Wilson to mention any of that. In fact, Wilson went on to quote President Obama further: In his address, Obama said, “The political season is upon us in Washington, but gridlock as a political strategy is destructive to the country.” “Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, we’ve got an obligation that goes beyond caring about the next election,” he said. “We have an obligation to care for the next generation. So I hope that when Congress returns next week, they do so with a greater spirit of compromise and cooperation. America will be watching.” Sadly, other news outlets took the same tack of ignoring Obama’s glaring hypocrisy. Politico covered the address in a short report that mentioned nothing of the past. The New York Times used the occasion to repeat guilt-stricken quotes about “unemployed Americans” and families who can’t afford to buy a home. Worst of all was the Associated Press, which spoke directly in its headline about “making life harder for the jobless” – never bothering to wonder if such partisan blame-games from the president could be partially responsible for things being harder. It was just a few years ago that partisan arguments from the president were seen as divisive and polarizing. Of course, that was when a Republican was in the White House, and liberal Democrats were the ones stalling. Back then, the media were quite annoyed by sitting presidents who criticized the other party. On November 5, 2004, Salon published a rant from an enraged Cass Sunstein who encouraged fellow progressives to keep fighting after Bush’s reelection victory: After this intensely fought election, both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry are speaking of the need to heal our divisions and come together as a single, united nation. They’re wrong. Critics of the Bush presidency do not need to heal our divisions but to insist on them. President Bush has presided over an extraordinarily divisive and polarizing administration. The suggestion that we should now “heal our divisions” is really a suggestion not for unity but for capitulation… This is not a time to yield to a radical agenda for our nation’s future or its Constitution. Nor is it time to heal our divisions. It is time to shout them from the rooftops. The media’s response to that strategy was something less than outrage. In fact, this view of politics was acceptable fare back then. A few months later, NBC’s David Gregory curtly reported that “bipartisanship appears to be out” thanks to President Bush refusing to work with liberal Democrats. He accused Bush of “barreling ahead” with unpopular agendas and “not talking about compromise.” In 2005, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne had this to say about Bush: Recent months, and especially the past two weeks, have brought home to a steadily growing majority of Americans the truth that President Bush’s government doesn’t work. His policies are failing, his approach to leadership is detached and self-indulgent, his way of politics has produced a divided, angry and dysfunctional public square. We dare not go on like this. In 2007, the NY Times called Bush “a polarizing president like no other” who had “given little ground” to Democrats. When Bush fought a plan in Congress to expand federal funding for children’s health insurance, the Times quoted Rahm Emanuel saying, “I’m at a loss over what is driving him with this strategy.” That was how a Republican president was treated for refusing to give in to the opposition. It had nothing to do with obstructionist liberals who refused to let the nation heal, even though they had stated that very thing as their goal. Bush refused to lie down for liberal agendas, so obviously he was the cause of all the friction. How convenient that liberal Democrats are now in charge of Washington, and suddenly the president is excused for being partisan. It would appear that, according to our media, the definition of compromise is when conservatives give up. 

See the article here:
Media Help Obama Bash Republicans, Forget ‘Polarizing’ Charge Against Bush

NYT’s Cooper: Obama Becomes Jimmy Carter If He Doesn’t Get Control Of Oil Spill

Barack Obama’s presidency goes the way of Jimmy Carter’s if he doesn’t get control of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. So said New York Times White House correspondent Helene Cooper on the most recent installment of “The Chris Matthews Show.” As the opening segment’s discussion concerning the spill moved to a close, the host surprisingly asked his panel if  Obama can continue to “blame the previous administration, the oil patch guys, Bush and Cheney” for the disaster. Readers will likely find the answers quite surprising (video follows with transcript and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Bottom line politically, he can no longer, can he longer blame the previous administration, the oil patch guys, Bush and Cheney, or does he have to move on and take the heat? JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: I think he has to move on. He has to move on largely because forgetting about what caused the spill, there’s now a disaster that’s going to play out over months in terms of how do we keep the oil off our shores, how do we get it out of the mashes, keep it off the marshes, how do we limit the impact now. So that is his challenge. And this is not going to be Bush’s or Cheney’s challenge. That’s on his front door. MATTHEWS: Present danger. Let me ask you this, everybody, right around here. We’re going to end with this: will he get on top of this whole oil mess in the Gulf, get on top of it? SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: I think they would argue that they are on top of it. I think his… MATTHEWS: What would an objective observer say right now? Are they on top of this? Will they get on top of it? GUTHRIE: Well, I don’t think we can say until the leak is capped. RICK STENGEL, TIME: I think they will use the crisis as an opportunity and he will build it into something that can be a national campaign. MATTHEWS: And he will look better after this is over than he did before? STENGEL: Well, he will look better than he did at the beginning. MATTHEWS: Okay. Helene? HELENE COOPER, NEW YORK TIMES: He has to. If he doesn’t, I think his presidency is, will go the way of Jimmy Carter’s. HEILEMANN: I think, I think, I’m with Helene. I think he has to. And I think if he doesn’t it will really cost him. Are media after more than seven weeks of watching a pathetic response to this disaster finally turning on the President they helped get elected, or is this just a moment of frustration? Stay tuned. 

Continue reading here:
NYT’s Cooper: Obama Becomes Jimmy Carter If He Doesn’t Get Control Of Oil Spill

HuffPo Column is a Microcosm of the Liberal Mindset – EVERYTHING is Bush’s Fault

Huffington Post writer and author of poetry and fiction, Anis Shivani, demonstrated what we have seen in bits and pieces throughout the liberal MSM, though it is rarely seen in such dramatic and sweeping fashion.  Shivani harnessed all of the rational thought he could muster, gathered a bevy of intelligent rhetoric, armed himself with a cache of well-reasoned arguments and… quickly dispensed with them prior to writing his recent column .  The gist of the piece?  Every major catastrophe to hit America can be traced to one singular event – George Bush and the 2000 Presidential election results. No, seriously. Shivani starts off by listing examples of American catastrophes – 9/11, Enron, Katrina, Wall Street, the BP spill. He then explains (emphasis mine throughout): ” It all began with the Florida election theft in 2000 (all of the now-familiar excuses were first used in full force, in total conjugation, for this first disaster). It gave a signal to everyone managing and regulating and overseeing any kind of operation, public or private, that henceforth it was the day of the jackals , that accountability and honesty and certitude were out the door.” For good measure – and in tune with his liberal colleagues – the BP oil spill is singled out as being directly Bush’s fault: “In such an open culture of deceit, why do we expect BP not to cut corners, or to be afraid of being brought to account should its recklessness go awry? Nobody has been held responsible for the eight years of war crimes under the Bush administration. Everyone knows that you can get away with whatever you want , and if you mess up on your watch, it’s all right. You’re certainly not going to jail.” Never mind those pesky Transocean/Deepwater safety awards handed out by the Obama administration.  Certainly the only culpability lies with the previous administration. On a side note, if getting away with whatever you want caused these catastrophes, then William Jefferson has some ‘splainin’ to do. The liberal media have consistently blamed Bush for every one of the aforementioned disasters.  That trend has continued with the disaster in the Gulf, as the following list demonstrates: Frank Rich Blames Oil Spill on Bush, Cheney, Beck, Palin, Tea Party and Rand Paul Behar on Oil Spill: Bush-Cheney ‘Started It, And Now This Poor Guy Has to Mop It Up’ Huffington on ABC’s This Week: ‘Absolutely a Thousand Percent Bush-Cheney’s Fault’ Now however, the bar has been raised by explaining away every single American catastrophe as being caused by the 2000 election.  No mention of what caused the devastation in Haiti, the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, or the earthquake in Chile, but the people of those nations should seriously consider the effect of hanging chads on plate tectonics.  In the middle of the article, Shivani does exhibit a moment of clarity, finally criticizing the Obama administration for not stemming the flow of these disasters because – wait for it – they didn’t prosecute Bush administration officials for war crimes. “At no point has the circuit been broken. Obama, if he’d prosecuted officials in the previous administration for war crimes, would have slowed down the flow of disasters. How is BP connected to torture? In every way imaginable. Once this administration took charge, it refused to send any signals that those who committed crimes against the people would be brought to justice.” Hold on there Crazy McCrazypants.  Election results cause earthquakes?  Fighting a War on Terrorism and more specifically, waterboarding, causes oil spills?  I’ve heard it all now.  Next you’ll be telling me that excessive cleavage causes … well, nevermind. The best part about this piece is the end, where Shivani wraps it all up by hinting that any eventual disasters will also be Bush’s fault. “It is a huge, unmistakable signal that lawlessness is all right. It goes back to Florida, the original sin, it really does , and there’s no putting this Humpty Dumpty back together again…  These disasters are merely the exclamatory end points of this particular bloated empire. Get ready for the next ‘completely unprecedented,’ even larger one .” In the meantime, we’ll simply get ready for the next bout of Bush Derangement Syndrome from the Huffington Post.  – Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net . Please join me on Facebook.

See more here:
HuffPo Column is a Microcosm of the Liberal Mindset – EVERYTHING is Bush’s Fault

April 25 is World Malaria Day

April 25 is World Malaria Day, also known as Malaria Awareness day.  It is a day to commemorate the global effort to provide worldwide malaria control. In 2007, former US President George W. Bush called Americans to join in t eradicate malaria on the African continent. World Malaria Day serves as a reminder for all of the people and gives a chance for all of us to make a difference. Whether you are a government, a company, a charity or an individual, you can roll back malaria and help generate broad gains in multiple areas of health and human development. In Africa, malaria kills almost 1 millions lives everyday and 3,000 of it are children. April 25 is World Malaria Day is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading

Barack Obama’s State of the Union Was Awesome

Barack Obama ‘s first State of the Union was not a particularly soaring or pretty speech. But it was really the model every future president should look to when composing their own. There hasn’t been a major change to the State of the Union since Lyndon Johnson moved it to prime time in 1965

More:
Barack Obama’s State of the Union Was Awesome

Karl Rove Backs The Wrong Team

Filed under: TMZ Sports , Politix Karl Rove — Geroge W. Bush’s Senior Advisor — has been credited as “the architect” behind Bush’s Presidential wins — so it’s too bad he wasn’t making the game plans for his alma mater’s team, the Texas Longhorns, at last night’s Rose Bowl.Having …

Read the rest here:
Karl Rove Backs The Wrong Team