Apparently the Republicans can't blame Obama for the economy, with Dubya sitting right there.


"Add former president George W. Bush to the list of no-shows at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. (The Democrats have their own issues on the convention-skipping front).

Bush, who has mostly kept out of sight since leaving office in January 2009, was "grateful" for an invitation to the gathering that will formally nominate Mitt Romney. "But in keeping with his desire to stay off the political stage at this point in the post-presidency, he respectfully declined the invitation," spokesman Freddy Ford said in a statement."


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/georg...20949.html

"He supports Governor Romney and wants him to succeed. President Bush is confident that Mitt Romney will be a great President," Ford said.

Something tells me that he really is not wanted at the Convention.

Sooner or later it's got to be Obama's economy, no?

I mean, Grandpa Joe said so.

(07-20-2012 08:04 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Something tells me that he really is not wanted at the Convention.

If it was Bush vs Obama today, Bush beats him in a landslide.

Perhaps he changes his mind if Condi Rice was named VP nominee and he would be the perfect choice to introduce her. I think he would make a strong speech on her behalf and showcase how much she was an asset to the country and to his administration. You have to respect Bush's approach that he told the country exactly where he stood on issues. like him or not. With Obama and Romney there is a lot of evolving or flip flops on the issues. You might not have liked Bush, but you knew where he stood on the issues. People did like his directness. He told you what he believed and let the chips fall. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama and Romney have flipped alot on issues in their careers. Atleast with Bush you knew exactly where he was. Like it or not.

(07-20-2012 10:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 08:04 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Something tells me that he really is not wanted at the Convention.

If it was Bush vs Obama today, Bush beats him in a landslide.

C'mon man!

Bush never won any election by a landslide. Hell actually, Bush never won any election, but that is another story. Bush lost to Gore for goodness sakes.

Wonderful insight, Marv. Please enlighten all of us on how our current President is free of responsibility for the current economy, particularly when having a Democratic majority in both houses for his first two years.

I eagerly await your response.

(07-20-2012 10:18 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 10:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 08:04 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Something tells me that he really is not wanted at the Convention.

If it was Bush vs Obama today, Bush beats him in a landslide.

C'mon man!

Bush never won any election by a landslide. Hell actually, Bush never won any election, but that is another story. Bush lost to Gore for goodness sakes.

He never ran against the worst president in the history of this country.

(07-20-2012 10:25 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Wonderful insight, Mary. Please enlighten all of us on how our current President is free of responsibility for the current economy, particularly when having a Democratic majority in both houses for his first two years.

I eagerly await your response.

No problem ODUsmitty. From what I have observed it appears that there is some kind of worldwide recession. Hell, Greece was on the verge of going under, but hopefully that will get turned around soon. As for America the President has been able to stabilize large banks and the auto makers and interest rates are still very low, but there is still work to do. I just don't think that you can cut tax revenues and then launch two wars; because as you know smitty, wars are expensive. And that was on the last guy.

(07-20-2012 10:38 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 10:18 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 10:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 08:04 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Something tells me that he really is not wanted at the Convention.

If it was Bush vs Obama today, Bush beats him in a landslide.

C'mon man!

Bush never won any election by a landslide. Hell actually, Bush never won any election, but that is another story. Bush lost to Gore for goodness sakes.

He never ran against the worst president in the history of this country.

How would Dubya run against himself?

(07-20-2012 10:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 08:04 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Something tells me that he really is not wanted at the Convention.

If it was Bush vs Obama today, Bush beats him in a landslide.

I'd be willing to give you 10 to 1 odds against that happening.

(07-20-2012 10:25 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Wonderful insight, Mary. Please enlighten all of us on how our current President is free of responsibility for the current economy, particularly when having a Democratic majority in both houses for his first two years.

I eagerly await your response.

Both were and are crappy leaders. Shrub would have one hell of a time running on his war record.

(07-20-2012 08:06 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Sooner or later it's got to be Obama's economy, no?

I mean, Grandpa Joe said so.

I never understood this logic. One person broke the economy and the next person who tries to fix it is responsible for breaking it? Why would you trust the people who broke it to fix again?

(07-20-2012 10:18 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Hell actually, Bush never won any election, but that is another story. Bush lost to Gore for goodness sakes.

Just because you don't believe in the electoral college doesn't mean we don't use it to elect the president (regardless of how bastardized it has become).

(07-20-2012 10:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 08:06 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Sooner or later it's got to be Obama's economy, no?

I mean, Grandpa Joe said so.

I never understood this logic. One person broke the economy and the next person who tries to fix it is responsible for breaking it? Why would you trust the people who broke it to fix again?

As opposed to the president's logic?

"It's all Bush's fault".

3.5 years later, "There isn't a whole lot the president can do to affect the economy."

1. I tend to agree with that second sentiment.

2. Since the president and I agree, he can STFU about Bush now.

Guy's in 08' it was a complete **** storm of epic proportions. I can't believe you guy's can forget that.

Bush came into a surplus and squandered it. Obama came into one hell of a mess.

(07-21-2012 07:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bush came into a surplus and squandered it.

No he didn't. I've corrected you more than once about this lie.

A projected surplus is not a real surplus. You would have people believe Bush walked into the money already in the bank. No such thing. It was projected, based on assumptions, among them taxes remaining where they were and economic growth not accounting for a recession or an attack on 9/11.

Factcheck.org

Quote:On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed. That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.

(07-21-2012 07:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guy's in 08' it was a complete **** storm of epic proportions. I can't believe you guy's can forget that.

Bush came into a surplus and squandered it. Obama came into one hell of a mess.

Whatever Obama inherited, he has had four years to fix it and has failed. The only positive he can claim is that the economy was losing 700,000 jobs per month when he took over and now it's gaining jobs at too slow a rate to keep up with population growth.

But look at the facts. We were not going to keep losing 700,000 jobs a month indefinitely. There are only so many jobs an economy can shed. Looking at the time line, the economy bottomed out about when recessions usually bottom out on their own, and long before anything Obama did had time to take effect. The only thing that's really different about the Obama "recovery" is how slow the recovery has been. Usually, the steeper the decline the steeper the recovery. But this has been the slowest recovery since the 1930s, wich is of course the last time we tried "stimulus" on this scale.

What the charts actually show is that we hit bottom within a month or two after Obama took office, and have pretty much stayed on the bottom.

So that everyone is clear that the lie mach continues to perpetuate here is, in fact a lie.

Debt when Clinton took office - 4.18 Trillion
Debt after his first year - 4.5 Trillion
Debt after second year - 4.79 Trillion
Debt after third year - 4.98 Trillion
Debt after fourth year - 5.3 Trillion
Debt after fifth year - 5.49 Trillion
Debt after sixth year - 5.62 Trillion
Debt after seventh year - 5.706 Trillion
Debt after eighth year - 5.727 Trillion

Now then. If Bush had really inherited a surplus those numbers in the last 2 years of Clinton's second term should have gone down. They didn't. They went up. It is impossible to have inherited a true surplus when your national debt increased EVERY SINGLE YEAR!

The CBO had a PROJECTED surplus that didn't factor a .com bust, a recession or 9/11 just to name a few.

Bush inherited a surplus.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...st01z1.xls

Look at year 2000.