In response to:

For Some Democrats, Bush Is To Blame-Forever And Ever

Incredulous2 Wrote: May 23, 2012 10:50 AM
I'll grant that you are indeed in the majority of fantasy-land with your same tired screeds. How about we look at 2006. The Dem/Prog/Lib cabal members had a super majority in both the house and senate, while our sacred, unbiased LSM (lame stream media) continually pounded Bush for insignificant nothings. Wreaking havoc on a market based economy is what Dem/Prog/Lib cabal members are all about. Central command and control is their cherished goal. In the course of human history, where has this form of economic modeling ever worked? EVER!
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: May 23, 2012 4:51 PM
RIght. Bush policies in 2002-4, which produced solid growth, low unemployment, and a stable economy for those years, plus 2005, and 2006, and 2007 "caused the collapse in 2008." Right. Sure.

Actually, it is not "only Incredulous2" who says that democrats want central command and control. Many, many say that. Folks you've not heard of, nor read. (Warning - they use big words, libbie), but try: Hayek, Sowell, Murray, Will, and many others.

Of course you won't - libbies prefer to be uninformed; it makes less acute the cognitive dissonance resulting from their fantasies.

In the Majority Wrote: May 23, 2012 10:54 AM
Bush had veto pen; Democrats did NOT have a supermajority in the Senate in 2006; and, it was the policies put into place by Bush 2002-2004 which caused the 2008 collapse. Nice try though.

And it's only you who say Democrats want central command and control. In reality, it is the wealthy who control the Republicans who want a return to feudalism, with the 1% owning almost everything, a small, service class doing better than most, and everyone else subject to the whims of the 1%

In the early days of the Obama administration, a lot of people, including some Republicans, weren't much bothered by the new president's tendency to blame his predecessor for the nation's problems. After all, Barack Obama did inherit a mess from George W. Bush. The voters were inclined to give Obama time to turn things around.

But how much time? Certainly a year was reasonable. And so, as Obama's one-year mark approached in 2010, many political analysts assumed he would stop blaming Bush for the nation's woes. The conversation would change from the problems Obama inherited to the effectiveness of his efforts...