Conservatives called Obama "Bush 3" during the campaign...
Not that I doubt you - they called him just about everything else - but I don't remember that. Wouldn't the 'Bush 3' label have caused Palinistas terrible confusion when deciding how to vote?
Remember the Republican National Convention? Bush's address was made via a big video screen and he was lucky to get more than a golf clap. Palin, on the other hand, stole the show.
Big spending, open borders Bush is not a particularly well admired figure in conservative politics.
Posts: 8737 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
'This President has filled the White House with people who have no inclination to pose any major challenge to the economic power of America’s dominant financial industries (GM being an exception). We’ve already seen this in their dealings with Wall Street investment banks and their too-big-to-fail is too-big-to-challenge approach to financial regulation. We’re seeing it now with efforts to shield the major health and insurance industries from any fundamental challenge.
Sure, there are changes being offered, new regulations being proposed, and more people will be insured than before. But there is no framework being laid for a new structure for how health care is delivered and paid for in America. That is the pattern of this White House, and there is little basis to expect otherwise.
Watch the decisions Harry “makes” in coming days. My bet is they’ll shore up the underlying deals — they’ll make mandated insurance modestly more affordable and fix the mandates a bit, while protecting the insurers from a viable, functioning public option. The industry will still control a system in which consumers will be forced to buy their unreliable products with government subsidies.'Why the White House Probably Doesn’t Want a Public Option
“The Administration may soon bring to Congress a request for an additional $50 billion for war. I can tell you that a Democratic version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is no more acceptable than a Republican version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
'War spending in 2010 will exceed $190 billion if indeed the Pentagon seeks-and Congress approves-$50 billion in "emergency" funding. That's more than the $179 billion spent under President Bush in 2008, the previous high water mark for war spending. War spending in 2010 will also far exceed spending in 2009 (which is about $145 billion).'commondreams.org
'...In fact, when it comes to U.S. policy in Latin America — as events this week in Honduras suggest — it's often hard to tell if George W. Bush isn't still President.'Obama's Latin American Policy Looks Like Bush's
'A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversight subcommittee on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, “the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history.” That’s not in one war zone—that’s the Pentagon in its entirety.'Stunning Statistics
There must now be a significant 'war lobby' in the US - morally blind corporate entities that depend on war for their existence. Would opting for peace be as difficult as, and meet the same well-funded opposition as, trying to introduce health care reform?
